Full text of "Introduction to the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible"

See other formats

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

University of Toronto

http://archive.org/details/introductiontomaOOgins

INTRODUCTION

TO THE

MASSORETICO-CRITICAL EDITION

OF THE

HEBREW BIBLE

CHRISTIAN D.'OINSBURG, L. L. D.

LONDON.

PUBLISHED BY THE TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY

25 NEW OXFORD STREET.
1897.

, ; Carl Fromme in Wien.

EMILIE

WHOSE SELF-DENTAL AND SYMPATHY

AND EVER READY HELP

IN MY BIBLICAL LABOURS

HAVE

FOR WELL-NIGH THIRTY YEARS

BEEN OF UNSPEAKABLE COMFORT

I DEDICATE THIS BOOK

WITH

A HUSBAND'S DEEPEST AFFECTION.

PREFACE.

The present Edition of the Hebrew Bible, to
which this Volume is an Introduction, differs from all
others in the following particulars:

THE TEXT.

1. The Text itself is based upon that of the First
Edition of Jacob ben Chayim's Massoretic Recension,
printed by Bomberg, at Venice, in the year 1 524-5.
Existing Hebrew Bibles, which profess to follow Jacob
ben Chayim's text, have admitted in the course of
years many unwarranted variations from it and many
errors.

2. No variations, however strongly supported by
Hebrew Manuscripts and Ancient Versions, are intro-
duced into the Text itself, which has been compiled
strictly in accordance with the Massorah collected from
the Manuscripts.

3. All variations are relegated entirely to the
margin.

4. While the modern divisions of chapters and
verses are noted for the sake of convenience, the text
is arranged according to the ancient chapters and

IV PREFACE.

sectional divisions of the Massorah and the MSS., which
arc thus restored.

5. It uniformly reproduces the Dageshed and
Raphed letters, which are found in all the best
Massoretic Manuscripts, but which have been omitted
in all the current printed editions of the Hebrew Bible.

6. The ancient Massoretic chapters, called Sedarim,
arc also indicated throughout in the margin against their
respective places.

THE MARGIN.

7. It is well known that in the printed Texts the
variations called Kethiv and Keri are marked by the
word in the Text (Kethiv) having the vowel-points
belonging to the word in the margin (Keri). This
produces hybrid forms, which are a grammatical enigma
to the Hebrew student. But in this Edition the .words
in the Text thus affected (Kethiv) are left unpointed,
and in the margin the two readings are for the first
time given with their respective vowel-points.

8. The margin contains the various readings of
the different Standard codices which are quoted in
the Massorah itself, but which have long since perished.

9. It gives the various readings found in the
Manuscripts and Ancient Versions.

10. It gives the readings of the Eastern and
Western Schools against those words which are
affected by them; lists of which are preserved, and
given in the Model Codices and in certain special
Manuscripts.

PREFACfe. V

11. It also gives, against the affected words, the
variations between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali,
hitherto not indicated in the margin. These had
been consigned to the end of the large Editions of
the Bible which contain the Massorah of Jacob ben
Chayim.

12. It gives, in some instances, readings of the
Ancient Versions which are not supported by Manu-
script authority.

i3. It gives, for the first time, the class of various
readings called Sevirin against every word affected
by them. These Seinrin in many Manuscripts are
given as the substantive textual reading, or as of equal
importance with the oftical Keri. These readings have
been collected from numerous Manuscripts.

When compiling the notes to the Hebrew Bible.
I at first gave the results of my collation without
regard to the work of others who also profess to edit
the Hebrew7 Text according to the Massorah. It was.
however, pointed out to me that as sundry parts of
Dr. Baer's edition of the text had been accepted by
students as exhibiting the Massoretic recension, and
since my edition differs in many respects from that of
Dr. Baer, it was my duty to specify the authorities
when my readings are in conflict with his. I acted upon
this advice which accounts for the Notes in my edition
of the Text being more extensive in the Prophets and the
Hagiographa than in the Pentateuch. To remedy this
inequality 1 have revised the notes to the Pentateuch
in order to bring them into harmony with those of

VI PREFACE.

the second and third Divisions of the Hebrew Bible.
A specimen of the revised notes 1 give in Appendix IV.

In addition to my having read the proofs of the
Hebrew Bible four times, they have also been twice
read by the learned Dr. Mandelkern of Leipzig and
once by the Rev. George Margoliouth of the Oriental
Printed Books and MSS. Department in the British
Museum. Mr. Margoliouth, moreover, revised and
verified the references to the Ancient Versions of the
Prophets and the Hagiographa, and it is to his careful
revision that I am indebted for their accuracy, as well
as for some valuable suggestions. The results of his
revision of the notes on the Pentateuch I hope to
embody in my revised notes.

That in spite of our united readings, some
errors should still have been overlooked, those who
have ever printed Hebrew with the vowel-points
and the accents wTill easily understand and readily
forgive. Some of these errors I have already detected,
and some have been pointed out to me. These
have duly been corrected in the stereotyped plates.
The absolute correctness of such a text can only be
secured in the process of time, and by the kindly
aid of students. But whether pointed out in a friendly
or in a hostile way, I shall be most grateful for such
criticism.

To my friend the Rev. Dr. Bullinger; the learned
secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society 1 am entirely
indebted for the elaborate Indices as well as for his
help in reading the proofs.

PREFACE. VII

I cannot conclude this Preface without expressing
my deep gratitude to the officials of the British Museum
for the ready help I have received from them in the
course of my work. But for the special privileges
accorded to me by Sir Edward Maunde Thompson
K.C.B., L.C.D., L.L.D. the Principal Librakia; Richard >^^vu
Garnett C.B., L.L.D. , Keeper of Printed Books; and
Robert K. Douglas, Keeper of Oriental Printed Books
and MSS., I could not possibly have finished this
Introduction and my other works within the span of
life allotted to me.

Christian i). Ginsburg.

Hohnleay Virginia Water, Surrey

November 5 1896.

Table of contents.

Part I. — The Outer Form of the Text.

Page

Preface Ill- VII

Table of Contents XI— XII

Chap. I. — The Order of the Books I — 8

Chap. II. — The Sectional Divisions of the Text (the Open and

Closed Sections) 9 — 24

Chap. III. — The Division into Chapters 25 — 31

Chap. IV. — The Scdarim; or Triennial Pericopes 32— 65

Chap. V. — The Parashiyoth; or Annual Pericopes .... 66—67

Chap. VI. — The Divisions into Verses 68—107

Chap. VII. — The Number of the Words 108 — 113

Chap. VIII. — The Number of the Letters 113

Part II. — The Text Itself.

Chap. I. — Dagesh and Raphe 114— j 36

Chap. II. — The Orthography 137 — J 57

Chap. III. — The Division of Words 158 — 162

Chap. IV. — The Double and Final Letters 163—164

Chap. V. — Abbreviations 165 — 170

Chap. VI. — Homoeoteleuton 171 — 182

Chap. VII. — The Kcri and Kcthiv 183—186

Chap. V'lII. — The Readings called Sevirin 187 — 196

Chap. IX. — The Western and Eastern Recensions 197 — 240

Chap. X. — The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali 241 — 286
Chap. XI. — The Massorah: its Rise and Development:

1 . The Introduction of the Square Characters 287 — 296

2. The Division of the Consonants into Words 296 — 297

3. The Introduction of the Final Letters 297 — 299

I The Introduction of the Mat res Lectionis 2Q9 — 300

5. The Consonants of the Hebrew Text and the Septuagint 300—468

X I I Table of Contents.

Page

i. Mikra Sopherim 308

II. Ilur Sopherim 308

in. Words Read which are not Written in the Text . 309

iv. Words Written in Text, but cancelled in Reading 315

v. The Fifteen Extraordinary Points 31H

vi. The Suspended Letters 334

vii. The Inverted Nuns 341

VIII. The Removal of Indelicate Expressions and Anthro-
pomorphisms, &c, from the Text 345

ix. The Emendations of the Sopherim 349

x. Impious Expressions towards the Almighty . . . 363

XI. The Safeguarding of the Tetragrammaton .... 367
XII. The attempt to Remove the Application of the

Names of False Gods to Jehovah 399

xiii. Safeguarding theUnity of Divine Worship at Jerusalem 404
Chap. XII. — The History and Description of the Manuscripts . 469-778

Chap. XIII. — The History of the Printed Text 779 — 976

Appendices.

Appendix I. On the Closed Sections 977

Appendix II. The Dikduhc Ha-Tcamim from the St. Petersburg

MS. (A. D. 1009) 983

Appendix [II. Tables of Massorah, Magna and Parva 1000

Appendix IV. Specimen of the Revised Notes on the Pentateuch 1001

Indexes

I. Index of Manuscripts 1003

II. Index of Printed Editions of the Hebrew P.ible 1006

III. Index of Subjects 1008

IV. Index of Persons 1016

V. Index of Principal Texts 102 1

Tables.

I. Table of Manuscripts Described i02<t

II Table of Printed Editions Described and Enumerated ... 1 03 1

Part I.
The Outer Form of the Text

The principles by which I was guided in the pre-
paration of this Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew
Scriptures extend not only to the outer form, but to the
condition of the text itself. The extensive changes,
however, which these principles necessitated, are strictly
in accordance with the Massoretic MSS., and the early
editions of the Massoretic text. These deviations from the
modern editions of the so-called Massoretic Hebrew Bibles
I shall describe in detail.

Chap. I.

The order of the Books.

The most ancient record with regard to the sequence
of the books in the Hebrew Scriptures is that given in
the Babylonian Talmud. Passing over the Pentateuch,
about which there never has been any doubt, it is here
laid down on the highest authority that the order of the
Prophets is as follows: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Minor Prophets; whilst
that of the Hagiographa is as follows: Ruth, Psalms, Job,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations,
Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. l

rrw b»pirn nw vibm bxibw iswiBn jwut erorsa bv pid '

— w' rbnp "btp&i arm n*b*nr\ -ibdi nn qiotd bv pro "tw d^pi

jbwi iiam kitj? -.rex nbvaai b$*:i nwp*i d*wi Comp. Baba Bathra 14 &.

2 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

Nothing can be more explicit than the directions given
in the canon before us as to the order of the books. Yet,
the oldest dated Biblical MS. which has come to light
deviates from this order. The St. Petersburg Codex which
is dated A. D. 916 and which contains only the Latter
Prophets has yet a List of all the Prophets, both Former
and Latter, and in this List the order is given as follows :
The Former Prophets — Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings ; the
Latter Prophets — Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor
Prophets. l Here, then, the sequence of the Latter Prophets
is not that which is prescribed in the Talmud.

The next MS. in chronological order is the St. Peters-
burg Codex, dated A. D. 1009. As this MS. contains the
whole Hebrew Bible, we see the discrepancy between the
Talmudic Canon, and the actual order adopted by the
Scribes to be still more glaring. We pass on from the
Pentateuch and the Former Prophets, which never vary
in their order, to the Latter Prophets and Hagiographa.
In these divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures the sequence
is as follows in this important MS.: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
the Minor Prophets, Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs,
Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther,
Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah. 2 The difference, here, is most
striking. What makes this deviation still more remarkable
is the fact that the Grammatico-Massoretic Treatise entitled
Adath Deborhn (A. D. 1207) describes this order, as far
as the Hagiographa are concerned, as the correct one,
exhibiting the Western or Palestinian practice; and the
order which places Chronicles or Esther at the end of this

1 Comp. the Facsimile edition by Professor Strack, fol. 224 a, St. Peters-
burg 1876.

2 Katalog der hebraischen Bibelhandschriften der kaiserlichen offent-
lichen Bibliothek in St. Petersburg von Harkavy und Strack, No. B, 19 a,
p. 263 etc., Leipzig 1875.

CHAP. I.] • The order of the Books. 3

division as the Eastern or Babylonian practice, which is
to be deprecated.1

The position, however, of Chronicles or Esther does
not constitute the only variation in the order of the
Hagiographa in the MSS. Besides these, there are also
points of difference in the sequence of the Latter Prophets
to which the notice in the Adath Dehor im does not refer at all.
To facilitate the comparison of the difference in the order of
the books, both in the MSS. and in the early editions, it is
necessary to state that for liturgical or ritual purposes the
Pentateuch, together with the five Megilloth, has been trans-
mitted separately in many Codices and in printed editions.

As the Megilloth, which are a constituent part of
the Hagiographa, follow a different order in different MSS.
as well as in some early editions; and moreover, as they
do not appear again among the Hagiographa in those
editions of the complete Bibles which place them after
the Pentateuch, I must first describe their sequence when
thus joined to the Pentateuch.2 For this purpose I have
collated the following nine MSS. of the Pentateuch with
the Megilloth in the British Museum, (i) Add. 9400;
(2) Add. 9403; (3) Add. 19776; (4) Harley 5706; (5) Add. 9404;
(6) Orient. 2786; (7) Harley 5773; (8) Harley 15283, and
(9) Add. 15282. These nine MSS. exhibit no fewer than
four different orders for the five Megilloth, as will be seen

1 The important passage bearing upon this subject is given by Professor
Strack and is as follows: D'p^H HP p^iT D^Siron nam 1? *2 CH^KH *|^W JH

bum »»nwnK ,mrp ,r\bnp ,&ym tit ,nn ^rcia --vx »m*?nn rDWi na*i
rwun mnxn puk tw anx au? Dnaepp ♦ppTin m wtei -aw px *mm .x-:r
mm onsen s-6k pa pwro b'nns nny ♦"ibdh mnxn nncx rbfo bv Dnspai
vbm .nzxn rn nrx D*ann xin ■a dw& rbmw p« ppn br •Dim nan -sac
:nr6in tot px pa tnpn -arc ■hsid ^a mw Comp. zeitschrift fur die

gesammte lutherische Theologie und.Kirche, Vol. XXXVI, p. 605. Leipzig 1875.

2 For their sequence when they form their proper part of the Hagio-
grapha, see the Table below, page 7.

Introduction.

[CHAP. I.

from the subjoined Table, in which I give also in the fifth
column the order adopted in the first, second and third
editions of the Hebrew Bible, viz., Soncino 1488, Naples
1491—93, and Brescia 1492-94; as well as that of the
second and third editions of Bomberg's Quarto Bible
(Venice 152 1 and 1525) in all of which the five Megilloth
follow immediately after the Pentateuch.

The order of the Megilloth after the Pentateuch.

III

MSS.Nos. 1,2,3

MSS.Nos. 4,5, 6

MSS. Nos. 7, 8

MS. No. 9

Early Editions

Song of Songs

Esther

Ruth

Song of Songs

Ruth

Song of Songs

Ruth

Lamentations

Ruth

Ecclesiastes

Lamentations

Ecclesiastes

Lamentations

Ecclesiastes

Esther

Ecclesiastes

Esther

It will thus be seen that the early editions of the Hebrew
Bible adopted unanimously the order exhibited in the first
column. It is also to be remarked that the different sequences
do not belong to different countries. The three MSS. which
head the first column belong, respectively, to the German
and Franco-German Schools. The three MSS. in the second
column are German, Franco-German and Italian. The two in
the third column are Italian and Spanish, whilst the one MS.
at the head of the fourth column is of the German School.

The Latter Prophets.
As has already been stated, there is no difference in
any of the MSS. or in the early editions with regard to
the order of the Former Prophets. It is only in the Latter
Prophets and in the Hagiographa where these variations
obtain. In the Tabular exhibition of these variations I
shall give separately the MSS., and the editions which I
have collated for these two divisions, since the variations
in the Latter Prophets are reduceable to three columns,

CHAP. I.] The order of the Books. 5

whilst those in the Hagiographa require no fewer than

seven columns.

For the Latter Prophets I collated the following MSS.

and early editions exhibiting the result in four columns:
Col. I. (i) The Babylon Talmud; (2) MS. No. 1 National
Library, Madrid, dated A. D. 1280; (3) Orient. 1474;
(4) Oriental 4227; and (5) Add. 1545. These have
the order exhibited in the first column.
Col. II. The order of the second column is that followed
in (1) the splendid MS. in the National Library,
Paris, dated A. D. 1286, and in (2) Oriental 2091
in the British Museum.
Col. III. The sequence in the third column is that of the
following eleven MSS.: (1) The St Petersburg
Codex, dated A. D. 916; (2) the MS. of the whole
Bible, dated A. D. 1009 also in St. Petersburg;
(3) Oriental 2201 dated A. D. 1246 in the British
Museum; (4) Arund. Orient. 16; (5) Harley 1528;
(6) Harley 5710- 11; (7) Add. 1525; (8) Add. 15251;
(9) Add. 15252; (10) Orient. 2348, and (11) Orient.
2626 — 28. These MSS. exhibit the order in the
third column.
Col. IV. In the fourth column I give the order which is
adopted in the five Early Editions, viz. (1) the
first edition of the entire Bible, Soncino A. D. 1488;

(2) the second edition, Naples A. D. 1491 — 93;

(3) the third edition, Brescia A. D. 1494; (4) the
first edition of the Rabbinic Bible edited by Felix
Pratensis, Venice A. D. 15 17, and (5) the first
edition of the Bible with the Massorah, edited
by Jacob ben Chayim, Venice A. D. 1524 — 25.
It will be seen that all these editions follow the
order in the third column so far as the Latter
Prophets are concerned.

Introduction.

[CHAP. I.

Table showing the order of the Latter Prophets.

III

Talmud
and three MSS.

Two MSS.
Paris and London

Eleven MSS.

Five Early Editions

Jeremiah

Ezekiel

Isaiah

Minor Prophets

Jeremiah

Isaiah

Ezekiel

Minor Prophets

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Ezekiel

Minor Prophets

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Ezekiel

Minor Prophets

The Hagiographa.
The variations in the order of the Hagiographa are
far more numerous, as is disclosed in the following MSS.
which I have collated for this division. They exhibit the
order given in the various columns:

Col. I. (i) The Talmud; (2) the splendid Codex No. 1 in

the Madrid University Library, dated A. D. 1280;

(3) Harley 1528, British Museum; (4) Add. 1525;

(5)Orient.22i2;(6)Orient.2375;and(7)Orient.4227.

Col. II. The following have the order of the second

column: (1) The magnificent MS. in the National

Library, Paris Nos. 1—3, dated A. D. 1286, and

(2) Orient. 2091 in the British Museum.

Col. III. The order of the third column is in Add. 15252.

Col. IV. The sequence in the fourth column is that of

(1) the St. Petersburg MS., dated A. D. 1009;

(2) in the Ad ath Dehor im, A. D. 1207; (3) Harley
5710— 11, and (4) Add. 1525 1.

Col. V. The order in the fifth column is that of the

Model Codex, Arund. Orient. 16.
Col. VI. The order in the sixth column is that of the

magnificent MS. Orient. 2626—28.
Col. VII. Whilst the order given in the seventh column is

to be found in Orient. 2201, dated A. D. 1246.
Col. VIII. The five early editions which I have already describ-
ed, follow the order exhibited in the eighth column.

CHAP. I.]

The order of the Books.

a
.2

a
o

1— 1

W .2

t/5

1— 1

£ W

73
in

CU
>

d
o

-d
"5

"in

'5
o

rid

Ol,

t— ,

C/)

tS)

a
o

tn
cu

3
cu

>
o

J
3

tut)

.2
"tn
cu

P
cu

'3
o
u

1— i

n
.2

(/I

73
'3
o

C/3

CuO

kl
cu

PL,

H-»

P
O

tn
,42

C/>

tn
OS

*-5

'3
o

CU
>

0
1-1

"in

73
'3

H- >

Cfl

3 in

•fi 7)

OX)

CU <u

rP
CU

T3 -d

'3
o

J3
U

B
73

1— )

cu
>
O
hi

rd
d

o
on
p
o
C/3

73
o
W

P
cu

a
o

1— 1

X!
cu

cu
73

•d

<L)
>
O
ki

euo
a
o

"tn

73
o

P
cu

rt
t>j

I— »

C/3

a
o

p
.2

s 5

(7)

O «3

-d

w>
a
o

'tn

"3
CU

cu
^P
<n

73
'3

o
k

1— >

cV3

e« C/)

ex
p

.2
13

^ ^

1 a

cu
tn

C/J

cu
cu

5 .a

cu
>
o

"in

73
o

o
bx>
p
o

73
"3

cu
•d

'3
o

l—>

T>-

8 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

It is to be remarked that in the eighth column which
exhibits the order of the early editions, the five Megilloth
are not given again; in the first three editions, under the
Hagiographa, since, in these editions they follow im-
mediately after the Pentateuch, as explained above, on
pag'e 3 &c.

The order which I have adopted in my edition of
the Hebrew Bible, is that of the early editions.

Chap. II.
The sectional divisions of the text.

In describing the manner in which the Hebrew text
is divided in the MSS. and which I have followed in this
edition, it is necessary to separate the Pentateuch from
the Prophets and the Hagiographa. The Pentateuch is
divided in four different ways: — (i) Open and Closed
Sections, (2) Triennial Pericopes, (3) Annual Pericopes, and
(4) into verses

Open and Closed Sections.

I. According to the Massoretic order (1) an Open
Section (nniDD) has two forms, (a) It begins with the
full line and is indicated by the previous line being un-
finished. The vacant space of the unfinished line must be
that of three triliteral words, (b) If, however, the text of
the previous Section fills up the last line, the next line
must be left entirely blank, and the Open Section must
begin a linea with the following line. (2) The Closed Section
(riEiriD) has also two forms, (a) It is indicated by its be-
ginning with an indented line, the previous line being
either finished or unfinished: this minor break, therefore,
resembles what we should call a new paragraph. And
(b) if the previous Section ends in the middle of the line,
the prescribed vacant space must be left after it, and the
first word or words of the Closed Section must be written
at the end of the same line, so that the break is exhibited
in the middle of the line. In the Synagogue Scrolls, which

10 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

have preserved the most ancient practice, as well as in the
best and oldest MSS. in book form, this is the only way
in which the Open and Closed Sections are indicated.
The practice of putting a 0 [= nmnO] or D [= PliBlflD] in
the vacant space, to indicate an Open or Closed Section,
adopted in some MSS. and editions, is of later date. I have,
therefore, disregarded it and followed the earlier MSS. and
editions. With some slight exceptions the MSS. on the whole
exhibit uniformity in the indication of these divisions in
the Pentateuch. Moreover, separate Lists have been pre-
served, giving the catchwords of each Open and Closed
Section throughout the Pentateuch.

But no such care has been exercised by the
Massorites in indicating the Open and Closed Sections in
the Prophets and Hagiographa, and no separate List of
them has as yet been discovered. Hence, though the
sectional divisions are tolerably uniform, it is frequently
impossible to say whether the break indicates an Open
or Closed Section. Moreover, some MSS. very frequently
exhibit an Open Section, whilst other MSS. describe the
same Section as a Closed one, and vice versa. The insertion,
therefore, of Q [= nmnB] and D [= HttlDD] into the text of
the Prophets and Hagiographa, as has been done by
Dr. Baer, can at best rest on only one MS., which may
represent one Massoretic School, and is contradicted by
the majority of standard Codices, which proceed from more
generally recognised Schools of Massorites. This will be
seen from the description of these Sections in the MSS.,
and the manner in which Dr. Baer has treated them in the
edition of his so-called Massoretic text.

For the Sections in the Former Prophets, viz. Joshua,
Judges, Samuel and Kings, I have minutely collated the
following six standard Codices in the British Museum.
(i) Oriental 2201; (2) Oriental 2626 — 2628; (3) Arundel

CHAP. II.] The sectional divisions of the text. 1 1

Oriental 16; (4) Harley 1528; (5) Harley 5710— 11; and
(6) Add. 15250. The catchwords of the respective Sections
in these MSS. and in Dr. Baer's edition I have arranged
in seven parallel columns, and the result shows what
Dr. Baer has omitted.

In Joshua Dr. Baer omitted twenty-nine Sections which
are plainly given in the MSS. They are as follows:

(1) Josh. I 12 is not only given in all the six MSS.,
but has 'D [= nniflD] in the vacant space in Arundel Or. 16;

(2) III 5 is given in all the six MSS.; (3) VI 12 is in
all the six MSS.; (4) VII 10 is in four MSS.; (5) IX 3 is in
all the six MSS.; (6) X 34 is in three MSS. and marked
TID in Arund. Or. 16; (7) X 36 is in five MSS. and marked
TID in Arund. Or. 16; (8) XI 10 is in five MSS. and marked
TID in Arund. Or. 16; (9) XII 9 is in all the six MSS. and
is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (10) XIII 33 is in four MSS.
(11) XV 37 is in five MSS.; (12) XV 43 is in four MSS.
(13) XV 52 is in five MSS.; (14) XV 55 is in five MSS.
(15) XV 58 is in five MSS.; (16) XV 60 is in four MSS.
(17) XV 61 is in five MSS.; (18) XX 5 is in four MSS.
(19) XXI 6 is in five MSS.; (20) XXI 7 is in five MSS.
(21) XXI 8 is in three MSS.; (22) XXI 13 is in four MSS.
(23) XXI 23 is in five MSS.; (24) XXI 25 is in four MSS.
(25) XXI 28 is in four MSS.; (26) XXI 30 is in four MSS.
(27) XXI 32 is in five MSS.; (28) XXI 38 is in five MSS
(29) XXII 7 is not only in five MSS. but is marked TID
in Arund. Or. 16.

Besides these serious omissions Dr. Baer has one
break, viz. Josh. XXIV 21, marked in his text D which
is against the authority of five out of the six MSS. His
designation of some of the Sections is also against the
MSS. Thus Dr. Baer has put D in the break of Josh. XI 6,
whereas Arund. Or. 16 which is a model Codex, has TIC
The same is the case in XV 1, where Dr. Baer has in-

12 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

serted D into the text, and Arund. Or. 16 has nmflD. The
reverse is the case in Josh. XXII i. Here Dr. Baer has
inserted 5, whereas Arund. Or. 16 marks it TID.

In Judges Dr. Baer has omitted eighteen Sections.
(i) I 27 which is in four MSS.; (2) I 29 is in four MSS.;
(3) I 30 is in all the six MSS.; (4) I 31 is in all the six
MSS.; (5) I 33 is in all the six MSS.; (6) III 7 is in all
the six MSS.; (7) VI 20 is in four MSS.; (8) VII 1 is not
only in four MSS., but has n£li1D in the vacant space in
Arund. Or. 16; (9) VII 15 is in all the six MSS. and is
marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (10) VIII 10 is in all the
six MSS.; (11) VIII 33 is in all the six MSS.; (12) IX 1
is in all the six MSS.; (13) IX 6 is in all the six MSS.;
(14) IX42 is in all the six MSS.; (15) XI ^2 is in four MSS.
and is marked nmnD in Arund. Or. 16; (16) XX 3 is in
four MSS.; (17) XX 30 is in five MSS. and (18) XXI 5
is in five MSS.

Dr. Baer again has two Sections in his text, viz.
Judg. Ill 15; which he marks D, and XX 15 which he marks
Q in the text, but which are not found in any of the six
MSS., whilst XXI 19 is supported by only one of the
six MSS. Moreover Dr. Baer has D in the vacant space
of the following four Sections: Judg. XI 29; XII 1; XX
12 and XXI 1. In all of them Arund. Or. 16 has TID.

In Samuel Dr. Baer has omitted fifty-one Sections:
(1) VIII 11 which is not only in four MSS., but is marked
in the vacant space TID in Arund. Or. 16; (2) XII 18 is
in five MSS.; (3) XIII 13 is in all the six MSS.; (4) XIV 6
is in five MSS.; (5) XIV 8 is in four MSS.; (6) XV 17 is
in four MSS.; (7) XV 22 is in five MSS.; (8) XIX 4 is
in four MSS.; (9) XX 1 is in five MSS.; (10) XX 35 is in
four MSS.; (1 1) XXX 7 is in all the six MSS.; (12) XXX 27
is in five MSS.; (13) 2 Sam. XI 2 is in all the six MSS.;
(14) XI 16 is in five MSS.; (15) XI 25 is in four MSS.;

CHAP. II.] The sectional divisions of the text. 13

(16) XII 7 is in three MSS.; (17) XIII 28 is in five MSS.;
(18) XIII 32 is in all the six MSS.; (19) XIII 34 is in all the
six MSS.; (20) XIV 10 is in all the six MSS.; (21) XIV 21 is
in all the six MSS.; (22) XIV 24 is in all the six MSS.;
(23) XIV 28 is in all the six MSS.; (24) XV 19 is in five
MSS.; (25) XV 25 is in all the six MSS.; (26) XVI 1 is
in all the six MSS.; (27) XVI 10 is in four MSS.; (28) XVIII
4 is in four MSS.; (29) XVIII 18 is in four MSS.; (30) XIX 22
is in five MSS.; (31) XIX 23 is in five MSS.; (32) XIX 39
is in five MSS.; (33) XIX 41 is in five MSS.; (34) XX 6
is in five MSS.; (35) XX 23 is in five MSS.; (36) XXIII 1
is not only in all the six MSS., but is marked HDD in the
vacant space in Arund. Or. 16; (37) XXIII 25; (38)
XXIII 26; (39) XXIII 27; (40) XXIII 28; (41) XXIII 29;
(42) XXIII 30; (43) XXIII 31 ; (44) XXIII 32; (45) XXIII
33; (46) XXIII 34; (47) XXIII 35; (48) XXIII 36; (49) XXIII
37; (50) XXIII 38 and (51) XXIII 29 are all in all the
six MSS.

Dr. Baer marks four Sections in the text which are
supported by only one MS., viz. 2 Sam. XIII 21; XVI 3;
XVII 22 and XXIV 16. He moreover marks three Sections,
viz. 1 Sam. V 1 1 ; 2 Sam. IX 4 and X 1 5 which are not in
any of the six MSS. The following fourteen Sections:

1 Sam. II 27; VI 25; VIII 7; XIII 1, 15; XIV 7; XXIX n;

2 Sam. I 17; III 14; IV 4, 11, 22; VII 1 and XVI 15 are
given by Dr. Baer as D, whereas in Arund. Or. 16 they
are all marked 'DD,

As Dr. Baer's Kings has not yet appeared, I must
pass on to the analysis of the Latter Prophets, viz. Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. In the exami-
nation of the sectional divisions of this portion of the
Hebrew Bible I have had the invaluable help of the St.
Petersburg Codex, dated A. D. 916, which has been edited
in beautiful fac-simile by Professor Strack. This MS. strictly

14 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

observes the rules with regard to the form of the Open
and Closed Sections already described (Comp. pp. 9, 10). So
strict was the Scribe in exhibiting the nature of the Sec-
tions that in one instance, when an Open Section ends
with a full line at the bottom of the column, which accor-
ding to the rule necessitated an entire blank line, he
put a D [= nmnD] in the middle of the vacant space, to
show that there is nothing wanting, but that the blank
line indicates an Open Section. 1

This Codex moreover shows that in early times the
Open and Closed Sections were as carefully indicated in
the Prophets and Hagiographa as in the Pentateuch, and
that the neglect to attend to the prescribed rules with
regard to the vacant spaces for these two kinds of Sections
is due to later Scribes.

In the case of the Prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah I have
also carefully collated the beautiful Lisbon edition A. D. 1492,
the editors of which were the first to introduce into the text
of the Prophets the letters D and D to indicate the Open
and Closed Sections.

In Isaiah Dr. Baer has omitted twenty-four Sections.
They are as follows: (1) I 18 which is in six MSS. and in the
Lisbon edition; (2) II 12 which is in all the seven MSS.
and in the Lisbon edition; (3) III 1 is in all the seven
MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (4) III 13 is in all the seven
MSS. and in the Lisbon edition and is marked T15 in the
text in Arund. Or. 16; (5) III 18 is in all the seven MSS. and
in the Lisbon edition; (6) V 24 is in five MSS. and in the
Lisbon edition; (7) VIII 3 is in four MSS.; (8) IX 7 is in
six MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (9) XVII 9 is in six
MSS. and in the Lisbon edition and is marked T1D in Arund.
Or. 16; (10) XVIII 7 is in three MSS. and in the Lisbon

1 Comp. St. Petersburg Codex, Jerem. L 46, fol. 115/?.

CHAP. II.] The sectional divisions of the text. 1 5

edition and is marked TlD in Arund. Or. 16; (n) XIX 25
is in five MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (12) XXXIII 1
is in all the seven MSS. and in the Lisbon edition;

(13) XXXVII 1 is in four MSS. and in the Lisbon edition;

(14) XL 6 is in five MSS. and in the Lisbon edition;

(15) XL 17 is in four MSS. and in the Lisbon edition;

(16) XLII 1 is in all the seven MSS. as well as in the Lisbon
edition and is marked TIB in Arund. Or. 16; (17) XLIII 23
is in five MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (18) XLIII 25 is
in two MSS. as well as in the Lisbon edition and is marked
TIB in Arund. Or. 16; (19) XLIV 1 is in all the seven MSS.
and in the Lisbon edition; (20) XLVII 1 is in four MSS.;
(21) XLIX 24 is in five MSS.; (22) LII 11 is in six MSS.
and in the Lisbon edition; (23) LVII 3 is in all the seven
MSS. and is marked in the Lisbon edition B 3 B and
(24) LXVII 12 which is in all the seven MSS. and in the
Lisbon edition.

Dr. Baer has two breaks, marked in the text by D, viz.
Is. VII 20 and XXXVI 1 1, which are supported by only one
MS. out of the seven. He moreover represents in the
text three sections by D, viz. XXVIII 6; XLIV 1 andLVIII 1,
which are described as j"lB in Arund. Or. 16.

In Jeremiah Dr. Baer has omitted the following twenty
Sections: (1) VII 3 which is not only in six MSS. and in
the Lisbon edition, but is marked in the text TlD in Arund.
Or. 16; (2) VII 12 which is in six MSS., (3) VII 16 which is
in four MSS. as well as in the Lisbon edition and is marked
nmriB in Arund. Or. 16; (4) VIII 4 is in five MSS. as well
as in the Lisbon edition and is marked TlD in Arund. Or. 16;
(5) VIII 17 is in four MSS.; (6) VIII 23 is in six MSS.;
(7) X 6 is in six MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (8) XI 20
is in five MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (9) XIII 18 is in
six MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (10) XIII 20 is in
four MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (11) XV 17 is in four

1 G Introduction. [CHAP. II.

MSS.; (12) XVII 11 is in five MSS. and in the Lisbon
edition; (13) XVII 21 is in four MSS. and in the Lisbon
edition; (14) XXIX 20 is in two MSS. and is marked T1D
in Arund. Or. 16.; (15) XXIX 21 is in five MSS. and in the
Lisbon edition; (16) XXX 10 is in five MSS.; (17) XXXII 16
is in five MSS. and is marked 'HS in Arund. Or. 16;

(18) XXXIII 25 is in six MSS. and in the Lisbon edition;

(19) XLVI 20 is in five MSS. and in the Lisbon edition
and (20) L 18 which is in four MSS. and in the Lisbon edition.

Dr. Baer has one Section in the text marked D, viz.
Jerem. IX 1 which is not in any of the seven MSS. and one
Section XXXVII 17 marked in the text D which is sup-
ported by only one MS. out the seven.

He has moreover inserted into the text D against the
following twenty-four Sections: I 3; IX 16; X 1; XI 6; XI 14;
XIV n; XVI 16; XVII 19; XVIII 5; XIX 1; XIX 14;
XXI 1; XXI 11; XXII 10; XXIII 1, 5, 15; XXIV 1;
XXV 8; XXXI 23; XXXII 42; XXXIV 1 ; XXXVII 9, and
XL 7, — all of which are marked TIS in the text in Arund.
Or. 16. Again, two Sections, viz. XIII 8 and XXII 11,
he marks S in the text, whereas they are marked 'flD in
Arund. Or. 16.

In Ezekiel Dr. Baer has omitted the following twenty-
one Sections: (1) V 10 which is in four MSS.; (2) VIII 12 is in
four MSS.; (3) X 1 is in three MSS.; (4) XI 2 is in six MSS.;
(5) XI 4 is in six MSS. ; (6) XIII 1 3 is in six MSS. ; (7) XIII 20
is in five MSS. (8) XIV 6 in six MSS. (9) XIV 9 which is
not only in all the seven MSS., but is marked 'flD in the
text in Arund. Or. 16; (10) XVI 51 which is in four MSS.
and is marked in the text T!D in Arund. Or. 16; (11) XVIII 27
is in five MSS.; (12) XXI 31 is in five MSS.; (13) XXII 19
is in six MSS.; (14) XXIII 1 1 is in five MSS.; (15) XXIII 22
is in all the seven MSS.; (16) XXIX 21 is in four MSS.;
(17) XXXIII 25 is in four MSS.; (18) XXXIV 10 is in

CHAP. II.] The sectional divisions of the text. 17

five MSS.; (19) XXXVIII 17 is in all the seven MSS.;
(20) XLVI 6 is in six MSS. and (21) XL VI 12 which is
in all the seven MSS

Dr. Baer has a break in the text with D in IX 7
which is against all the seven MSS., whilst in VIII 15 he
has a break with a D which is supported by only one
MS. He moreover has put D into the text against the
following six Sections: XXI 1, 13; XXII 1; XXIV 15;
XXVIII 20 and XXXIII 23, all of which are marked TlD
in Arund. Or. 16

In the Minor Prophets Dr. Baer has omitted the
following twelve Sections: (1) Joel I 13 which is in five
MSS.; (2) Amos VII 12 is in six MSS.; (3) VIII 9 which
is in all the seven MSS.; (4) Micah III 1 is in five MSS.;
(5) Zeph. Ill 16 is in three MSS ; (6) Hag. I 3 is in all the
seven MSS.; (7) I 12 which is in all the seven MSS.;
(8) I 13 is in four MSS. and marked '1DD in Arund.
Or. 16; (9) Zech. V 9 is in five MSS.; (10) VI 1 is in
five MSS.; (11) XIV 6 is in five MSS. and (12) XIV 12
which is not only in all the seven MSS., but is marked
TlD in Arund. Or. 16. Dr. Baer has one Section marked
D which is not in any of the seven MSS., whilst two of his
Sections, viz. Amos V 3 and Jonah II 2, are supported by one
MS only. He moreover marks the following five Sections
in the text with D which are described as TlD in Arund.
Or. 16; Hos. XIII 12; Zech. VIII 6, 7 ; IX 9 and XI 4.

The Psalms have no Sections, as each Psalm consti-
tutes a continuous and undivided whole. But special notice
is to be taken of the fact that according to the Massorah
the Psalter, Proverbs and Job are the three poetical
books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Accordingly they have
not only distinctive poetical accents, but in the best MSS.
the lines are poetically divided and arranged in hemistichs.
There is no other division between the separate Psalms

18 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

than the heading which occupies the middle of the line,
and there is no vacant space whatever between the end of
one Psalm and the beginning of the other. The number
of each Psalm is given in the margin. l This is the arrange-
ment in three of the six Model Codices which I have
collated for the sectional divisions, viz. Or. 2201 dated
A. D. 1246, Harley 5710 — 1 1, and Or. 2626 — 28, as well as
in Add. 15251 and in many other MSS.

In the first edition of the entire Hebrew Bible, Soncino
A. D. 1488, the editors, who were more bent upon saving
space than to exhibit the hemistichal division of the MSS.,
discarded the poetical arrangement of the lines. But in
the second edition of the entire Bible printed at Naples
circa A. D. 1491 — 93 the lines are duly arranged in hemistichs.
Instead of following this carefully printed edition which
reproduces the best MSS., later editors, for the same
economical reasons, followed the example of the Soncino
edition. Dr. Baer has adopted the same plan, whereas I
have followed the standard Codices, though I have not
always adopted their exact division of the lines especially
as the MSS. themselves vary in this respect.

For the sectional division of Proverbs I have also
collated the splendid MS. in the National Library of
Paris, marked in the Catalogue Nos. 1 — 3, which is dated
A. D. 1286. This MS. divides the book of Proverbs into
thirty-nine Sections. Thirty-two of these Sections are not
only preceded by a vacant line, but have against them in the
margin the letter Q which describes them as Open Sections,
whilst the other seven are simply preceded by a vacant

1 It is, however, to be remarked that in some MSS. the Psalter has
only 147 Psalms since IX and X are one, LXX and LXXI are one, CIV
and CV are one, CXVII and CXVIII 4 are one, whilst CXVIII 5 begins
a new Psalm. This is the case in MS. No. 4 in the Imperial and Royal Court
Library at Vienna.

CHAP. II.] The sectional divisions of the text. 19

line without the letter Q, or have a vacant space in the
middle of the line, which marks them as Closed Sections.
The following thirty-two Sections have the Q against
them in the margin: (i) I 8; (2) I 20; (3) II 1; (4) III 1;

(5) III 5; (6) IV 20; (7) VI 1; (8) VI 6; (9) VI 12;

(10) VII 1; (11) VIII 32; (12) IX 1; (13) XIX 10;
(14) XXII 28; (15) XXIV .9; (16) XXIV 23; (17) XXIV 28;
(18) XXIV 30; (19) XXV 2; (20) XXV 14; (21) XXV 21;
(22) XX VI 9 ; (23) XXVI 22; (24) XXVII 23 ; (25) XXVIII 1 1 ;
(26) XXVIII 17; (27) XXIX 18; (28) XXX 7; (29) XXX 10;
(30) XXX 18; (31) XXX 21; (32) XXXI 10. The following
four Sections are preceded by a vacant line without Q:
(.) VI 20; (2) XVIII 10; (3) XIX 1 and (4) XXXI 1.
Whilst of the three remaining Sections two have a vacant
space in the middle of the line, viz. VII 24 and XXV 1,
and one, viz. X I, has the single word ^bwtl in the middle
of the line. I have not inserted three of these thirty-nine
Sections, though marked with D against them in the margin,
viz. XXV 2; XXVI 9; XXVIII 11, because they are not
supported by any of the other six MSS., whilst I have
adopted the following thirteen Sections which are in the
other MSS. though they are not to be found in this Codex,
viz. (1) III 11; (2) III 19; (3) IV i;(4)Vi; (5)V7; (6) VI 16;
(7) VIII 22; (8) XIII 1; (9) XV 20; (10) XXII 22;

(11) XXX 15; (12) XXX 24 and (13) XXX 29.

Dr. Baer has omitted the following twelve Sections:
( 1 ) III 5 which is in two MSS. and is marked S in P. ; 1 (2) VII 24
which is in six MSS.; (3) XIX 10 is in four MSS. and
marked D in P.; (4) XXII 28 is in two MSS. and marked
Q in P.; (5) XXIV 19 is in two MSS. and marked D in P.;

(6) XXIV 28 is in two MSS. and marked £} in P.; (7) XXV 14

1 In this paragraph the letter "P." stands for the Paris Codex, referred
to above.

20 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

is in six MSS. and marked 0 in P.; (8) XXV 21 is in
three MSS. and marked 0 in P.; (9) XXVI 22 is in
six MSS. and marked Q in P.; (10) XXVII 23 is in six
MSS. and marked D in P.; (11) XXVIII 17 which is not
only in all the seven MSS., but is marked Q in P. and
(12) XXXI 10 which is also in all the seven MSS. and
marked D in P.

Dr. Baer has the following nineteen Sections, and
has inserts D into the text, contrary to all the seven MSS.:

(I) III 27; (2) V 18; (3) VIII 6; (4) IX 12; .(5) X 6;
(6)X 11; (7) XIII 15; (8) XIV 4; (9) XIV 16; (10) XIV 24;

(II) XV 1; (12) XVI 3; (13) XVII 24; (14) XXII 1;
(i5)XXVi3; (16) XXV 25; (17) XXVII 21; (18) XXVIII 6
and (19) XXVIII 16.

Dr. Baer moreover has three Sections marked D in
the text, which are respectively supported by only one
MS., viz. IV 10; VIII 1 and XII 4.

In Job Dr. Baer has a break and inserts D in the
text, viz. XXXIX 14, contrary to all the seven MSS.

In Canticles Dr. Baer has omitted two Sections, viz. II 14
which is in all the six MSS., and IV 12 which is in four MSS.

In Ruth III 8 Dr. Baer has a break and inserts D into
the text against all the six MSS.

In the four alphabetical chapters in Lamentations all
the standard Codices have breaks between the verses
which begin with the respective letters as exhibited in
my edition. In Dr. Baer's edition the verses in question
are printed without any break

In Ecclesiastes Dr. Baer has omitted the Section in III 2
which is to be found in all the six MSS. He has a break
and has inserted D into the text in III 1, which is contrary
to all the six MSS. He has the following three Sections
marked in the text by D, viz. Ill 14; V 1; and XII 9,
against all the six MSS. He has two Sections, viz. IV 1

CHAP. II.] The sectional divisions of the text. 21

and IX ii, marked D in the text which are supported by
only one MS.

In Daniel Dr. Baer has omitted three Sections: (i) II 37
which is in four MSS.; (2) V 8 which is in four MSS. and
(3) VI 7 which is also in four MSS. He has inserted four Sec-
tions and marked them in the text D, viz. (1) II 36; (2) III 30;

(3) VI 1 1 and (4) X 9 contrary to all the six MSS.

In Ezra Dr. Baer has omitted the following eleven
Sections: (1) III 1 which is in four MSS.; (2) IV 12 which
is in five MSS.; (3) V 1 which is in all the six MSS.

(4) V 3 is in five MSS.: (5) V 13 is in all the six MSS.
(6) VI 16 is in all six MSS.; (7) VII 7 is in five MSS.
(8) VII 12 is in four MSS.; (9) VII 25 is in four MSS.

(10) VIII 20 is in five MSS. and (1 1) X 1 which is in all the six
MSS. He has two Sections marked D in the text, viz. I 9;
and V 4, which are in only one MS.

In Nehemiah Dr. Baer has omitted eight Sections, viz.
(1) II 4 which is in four MSS.; (2) VI 14 is in five MSS.;
(3) X 1 which is in all six MSS.; (4) X 35 is in five MSS.; (5)
XI 19 is in four MSS.; (6) XI 22 is in four MSS.; (7) XI 24
is in four MSS. and (8) XIII 23 which is in five MSS.

In 1 Chronicles Dr. Baer has omitted seventy -two
Sections as follows: (1) I 18 is in four MSS.; (2) I 29 is in
four MSS.; (3) I 32 is in all the six MSS.; (4) I 33 is in
five MSS.; (5) I 35 which is not only in four MSS., but is
marked HBiriD in Arund. Or. 16; (6) I 38 which is in all
six MSS.; (7) I 39 is in five MSS.; (8) I 40 is in four
MSS.; (9) II 5 is in five MSS.; (10) II 7 is in all six MSS.

(11) II 8 is in four MSS.; (12) II 9 is in four MSS.
(13) IV 19 is in five MSS.; (14) V 1 1 is in all six MSS.
(15) V 29 is in four MSS.; (16) VI 24 is in five MSS.
(17) IX 12 which is in four MSS. and is marked 71 D in
Arund. Or. 16; (18) X 1 1 is in four MSS.; (19) XI 1 1 is in
five MSS. and is marked 71 D in Arund. Or. 16; (20) XI 22 is

22 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

in four MSS.; (21) XII 17 is in five MSS.; (22) XII 19 is not
only in all the six MSS., but is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16;
(23) XXI 27 is in four MSS.; (24) XXIV 19 is in four
MSS.; (25) XXV 3 is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16;
(26) XXV 4 is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund.
Or. 16; (27) XXV 10 is in five MSS. and is marked TD
in Arund. Or. 16; (28) XXV 1 1 is in five MSS. and is
marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (29) XXV 12 is in five
MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (30) XXV 13
is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16;
(31) XXV 14 is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund.
Or. 16; (32) XXV 15 is in five MSS. and is marked TID in
Arund. Or. 16; (33) XXV 16 is in five MSS. and is marked
TID in Arund. Or. 16; (34) XXV 17 is in five MSS. and is
marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (35) XXV 18 is in five MSS.
and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (36) XXV 19 is in
five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (37) XXV 20
is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16;
(38) XXV 21 is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund.
Or. 16; (39) XXV 22 is in five MSS. and is marked TID
in Arund. Or. 16; (40) XXV 23 is in five MSS. and is
marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (41) XXV 24 is in five MSS.
and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (42) XXV 25 is in
five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (43) XXV 26
is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund Or. 16;
(44) XXV 27 is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund.
Or. 16; (45) XXV 28 is in five MSS. and is marked TID in
Arund. Or. 16; (46) XXV 29 is in five MSS. and is marked
TID in Arund. Or. 16; (47) XXV 30 is in five MSS. and is
marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (48) XXV 31 is in five MSS.
and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (49) XXVI 6 is in
three MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (50) XXVI 7
is in three MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16;
(51) XXVI 10 is in four MSS.; (52) XXVI 29 which is in

CHAP. II.] The sectional divisions of the text. 23

all the six MSS.; (53) XXVII 2 is in fiveMSS.; (54) XXVII 4
is in four MSS. ; (55) XXVII 7 is in four MSS. ; (56) XXVII 8
is in four MSS.; (57) XXVII 9 is in four MSS.; (58) XXVII 10
is in four MSS.; (59) XXVII 1 1 is in four MSS.;
(60) XXVII 12 is in four MSS.; (61) XXVII 13 is in four
MSS.; (62) XXVII 14 is in four MSS.; (63) XXVII 15 is
in four MSS.; (64) XXVII 17 is in four MSS.; (65) XXVII 18
is in four MSS. ; (66) XXVII 1 9 is in four MSS. ; (67) XXVII 20
is in four MSS.; (68) XXVII 21 is in four MSS.;
(69) XXVII 22 is in four MSS.; (70) XXVII 26 is in four
MSS.; (71) XXVII 27 is in four MSS.; and (72) XXVII 32
which is in four MSS.

Dr. Baer moreover has one Section and inserted D into
the text, viz. XXIII 12, which is against all the six MSS. He
has four Sections marked with D in the text, viz. I 8; VI 14;
XXI 28 and XXVI 19, which are supported by only one of
the six MSS. The following three Sections he describes as B:
1 Chron III 1 ; IV 24; IX 35, which are marked T)D in Arund.
Or. 16; and four Sections which he marks D, viz. XV 3; 11;
XIX 1; and XXIX 26, are marked nmflQ in Arund. Or. 16.

In 2 Chronicles Dr. Baer has omitted the following
thirty -five Sections: (1) III 17 which is in three MSS.;
(2) IV 19 is in five MSS; (3) VII 5 is not only in four MSS,,
but is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (4) XVI 6 is in four
MSS.; (5) XVII 14 is in five MSS.; (6) XVII 15 is in all the
six MSS.; (7) XVII 16 is in all the six MSS.; (8) XVII 17
is in all the six MSS.; (9) XVII 18 is in all the six MSS.;
(10) XVII 19 is in four MSS.; (11) XXI 4 is in all the six
MSS.; (12) XXVIII 6 is in five MSS.; (13) XXVIII 7 is in
four MSS.; (14) XX VIII 8 is in all the six MSS.;
(15) XXVIII 12 is in all the six MSS.; (16) XXVIII 14 is
in all the six MSS.; (17) XXIX 14 is in four MSS.;
(18) XXIX 27 is in five MSS.; (19) XXX 10 is in all
the six MSS.; (20) XXX 20 is in all the six MSS.;

24 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

(21) XXX 22 is in all the six MSS.; (22) XXX 27 is in
four MSS.; (23) XXXI . is in five MSS.; (24) XXXI 2
is in all the six MSS.; (25) XXXI 3 is in five MSS.;
(26) XXXI 7 is in five MSS.; (27) XXXI 8 is in four MSS.;
(28) XXXII 21 is in five MSS.; (29) XXXIV 12 is in five
MSS.; (30) XXXIV 22 is in four MSS.; (31) XXXIV 24 is
in all the six MSS.; (32) XXXIV 29 is not only in all the
six MSS., but is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16.; (33) XXXV
7 is in five MSS.; (34) XXXV 8 is in five MSS. and
(35) XXXV 19 is in four MSS.

Dr. Baer moreover has a break in the text and inserts
D in four places, viz. 2 Chron. V 3; XIX 5; XXI 5 and
XXV 13, contrary to all the six MSS. The following three
Sections which he marks with D: IV 10, 11; and VII 11,
are supported by only one of the six MSS. He
marks one Section D (XVIII 28) which is marked TIB in
Arund. Or. 16.

It will be seen from the above analysis that these
omissions, additions and misdescriptions in Dr. Baer's text
of the Open and Closed Sections, extend to almost every
page. As they exhibit a serious difference between his
text and mine, I have been obliged minutely to describe
the MS. authorities which caused this difference.

Chap. III.
The Division into Chapters.

The division of the text into chapters is not of
Jewish Origin. From a note appended to MS. No. 13 in
the Cambridge University Library it will be seen that
R. Salomon b. Ismael circa A. D. 1330 adopted the Chris-
tian numeration of chapters, and placed the numerals in
the margin of the Hebrew Bible, for controversial pur-
poses, in order to facilitate reference to particular passages. '
For the same purpose probably, later Scribes or private
owners of MSS. added these chapters in the margin of
early Codices. And though in the great majority of instances
the Christian chapters coincide with one or the other of
the Massoretic Sections, they nevertheless contradict in
many instances the divisions of the Massorah. This con-
tradiction is not so glaring in the practice adopted by
R. Salomon, since he simply places the number of the

onao nnwi nyma bv tt^itrap trmpsn Bran p-ia p i^k 1
anb nnwrt? anx barrc nnbw "isontt DTipnym Daitste naoi nsc bz riiotfi
ismini lsnai&K pr by nr bin vb &bxw onir arrftw by mno roran
^b oniaiKi onnK onsDia ik D^-saia p rmnn picsfc rvron D"K*abi ntfrrpri
D"vrr 13K pxi naonfc tp^ia-Bp -pi -pn *yfea neon mm ^ibz piDen mpi ran
xnp; n*wa "ibd ds DTipnyn pb nraitrn mna on1? :w6i xohypapn Kin n&

: "01 BWTI tel "W ,CT6k Kn3 rV'WTCa fl^KH pnS W'a WlW^a At the end of
the List (fol. 246a) the following statement is made: T2 ^3& Dill p^S IfcblT;
S^Wnb D1K ^DVtE> H3 D.-6tP D'HUDTl p bxrfcC'K p H&^» '1 DniK DWiTI ffHM
JDm^KlP ^2 bl" mma H^lOTl Comp. fol. 245^7, also Catalogue of the Hebrew
Manuscripts in the University Library Cambridge by Schiller-Szinessy, pp. 17, 18,
Cambridge 1876.

26 Introduction. [CHAP. III.

chapter in Hebrew letters in the margin, whether there
is a Massoretic Section or not, without introducing any-
new break into the text to indicate the chapter in question.
The early editors of the printed text, however, up to 15 17
adhered closely to the MSS., and had simply the Massoretic
divisions into Sections without any marginal indication of
the Christian chapters. The Christian editors of the Com-
plutensian Polyglot (15 14 — 17) were the first who discarded
the Massoretic sections and adopted the Christian chapters
to harmonise the Hebrew text with the Greek and Latin
versions in the parallel columns. Though introducing new
breaks, they give the numbers of the chapters in Roman
numerals but still in the margin. Felix Pratensis, as far as
I can trace it, is the first who indicates in the margin the
Christian chapters in Hebrew letters throughout the whole
of his edition of the Rabbinic Bible published by Bom-
berg, Venice 1 5 17. But he retained in the text the Masso-
retic Sections. This practice was not only followed in the
three quarto editions containing the Hebrew text alone,
which issued from the Bomberg press in 15 17, 152 1 and
1525, but was adopted by Jacob b. Chayim in his famous
edition of the Rabbinic Bible in four volumns folio, also
published by Bomberg, Venice 1524 — 25. It continued in all
the Hebrew Bibles not accompanied by translations up
to 1570.

As far as I can trace it, Arias Montanus was the first
who broke up the Hebrew text into chapters and intro-
duced the Hebrew numerals into the body of the text
itself, in his splendid edition of the Hebrew Bible with
an interlinear Latin translation, printed by Plantin in one
volumn folio at Antwerp 157 1.

It was from this edition, as well as from the Poly-
glots, that this pernicious practice was adopted in the
editions of the Hebrew text published by itself. It makes

CHAP. III.] The Division into Chapters. 27

its first appearance in the Hebrew Bible without vowel-
points also published by Plantin in 1573 — 74. Even Jewish
^editors, who professed to edit the Hebrew text according
to the Massorah, introduced into the text itself these
anti-Massoretic breaks. In his beautiful edition of the
Hebrew Bible without points the distinguished Menasseh
ben Israel broke up the text and inserted the Christian
chapters into the vacant space.

Athias, in his celebrated edition 1659 — 61, not only
followed the same example, but went so far as to incor-
porate the numeration of the chapters in the Massoretic
Summary at the end of each book of the Pentateuch, and
to coin a mnemonic sign for it. As far as I am able to trace
it, he was the first who inserted the enumeration of the
chapters with the Massoretic computation. Thus, at the end of
Genesis, after giving the Massoretic number of verses, the
middle verse, the number of Annual Pericopes and of
the Triennial cycle, he states that this book has fifty
chapters, and that the mnemonic sign is inp *"p WT\ v">
[O Lord be gracious unto us; we have waited for thee
Isa. XXXIII 2] ; and then continues the Massoretic Summary.
The same he does at the end of Exodus, where he states that
it has forty chapters and that the sign is 1372 VffrK mifi
[— the law of his God is in his heart Ps. XXXVII 31]; at
the end of Leviticus, which he tells us has twenty-seven
chapters and for which the sign is "[313X1 "pX? PPHKl
[— and I will be with thee and will bless thee Gen. XXVI 3] ; at
the end of Numbers, which he tells us has thirty-six chapters
and for which the sign is DX» 1^3t^ 10311 *h [O that they were
wise, that they understood this Deut. XXXII 29]; and at the
end of Deuteronomy, where he states that it has thirty-four
chapters and that the sign is 33T5 ^33 v"> PTOK [/ will
praise the Lord with my whole heart Ps. CXI 1]. All this
is pure invention palmed off as a part of the Massorah.

28 Introduction. [CHAP. III.

That Jablonski (ed. 1699), Van der Hooght (ed. 1705).
Opitius (ed. 1706), Maius (ed. 17 16) &c. should have
copied Athias, both in his enumeration of the chapters
and in his invented mnemonic signs, is not surprising,
since they did not know which part of the Summary
was Massoretic and which was not. But that Raphael
Chayim, the editor of Norzi's excellent Massoretic text
with the Minchath Sha'i (>tP nPDB Mantua 1732-44),
should have been taken in by it, is an injury to the
memory of the distinguished Massoretic critic whose
work he undertook to edit.1 Raphael Chayim did not
simply copy Athias and his followers, as far as the Penta-
teuch is concerned, but went in for uniformity. Hence he
incorporated in the Massoretic Summaries the numbers of
the chapters at the end of every book throughout the
Prophets and the Hagiographa, and invented for them mne-
monic signs. It is remarkable that Heidenheim, who in his
excellent edition of the Pentateuch with the En-Hakore
{X'Tl'pn pi?) published at Rodelheim 18 18 -21, denounces
this practice of incorporating the numeration of the chapters
into the Massoretic Summary, as mixing up the secular
[= non-Massoretic] with the sacred [= Massoretic],2 has
yet at the end of each book adopted this very mixture,
exactly as it appears in Athias and his followers. Still
Heidenheim was thoroughly conversant with what the
Massoretic text ought to be according to the MSS. and the
early editions. Hence, though he indicated the chapters

1 Norzi's autograph MS. of the Minchath-Shai is in the British
Museum (Add. 27, 198), and it is almost needless to say that it does not
contain these innovations.
D1B3 133"K ^ISD^SSpn n£C£ bv IS }V^nV '3 "Pp-IBI |K3 "l&K'iT H& pb 1

rm *6i vSxk rfrsipa "rhh nan npi^nn *a *'"d m*op&n xb D3 \viip dib-t
vipz pbin D'jsnb D^i-intci Dtwran wv Comp. Heidenheim, D^ry niKfc rc&in

Vol. I, p. 86, Rodelheim 1818.

CHAP. III.] The Division into Chapters. 29

by Hebrew numerals in the margin, he introduced no breaks
into the text against the numbers when the chapter
divisions did not coincide with the Massoretic text.

Though Dr. Baer eliminated the numbering of the
chapters with the invented mnemonic signs from the
Massoretic Summaries at the end of each book, yet after
denouncing them as arbitrary and without any Massoretic
authority,1 he has introduced the breaks and the numbers of
the chapters into the text itself. How utterly this conflicts
with the Massoretic Sections, and how extensively these
divisions affect the Hebrew text will best be seen from an
analysis of the chapters themselves. Leaving out the Psalms,
the Hebrew Bible is divided into 779 Christian chapters. Of
this total 617 coincide with one or the other of the Massoretic
Sections, whilst no fewer than 162 are positively contrary to
the Massorah, inasmuch as the editors who introduced
them into the text have made breaks for them which are
anti-Massoretic

The portions of Dr. Baer's text which have not as
yet been published are Exodus which contains nine of these
anti-Massoretic chapter-breaks, Leviticus which has two,
Numbers which has five, Deuteronomy which has six and
Kings which has seven, making a total of twenty-nine.
Deducting these from the 162 there remain 133 for the
other books. Now Dr. Baer has actually followed the
pernicious example of his predecessors in breaking up
the text in every one of these cases, and introduced into
the text itself, where there is no Massoretic division at
all, not only the Hebrew letters which denote the numbers,
but the equivalent Arabic numerals. Thus

In Genesis he has introduced into the text the following
twenty anti-Massoretic breaks: (1) III 1; (2) VI 1;

1 Comp. his edition of Genesis, p. 92 note.

30 Introduction. [CHAP. III.

(3) VII i; (4) VIII i; (5) IX 1; (6) XIII 1; (7) XIX 1;

(8) XXVIII 1; (9) XXIX 1; (10) XXX 1; (n) XXXI 1;

(12) XXXII 1; (13) XXXIII 1; (14) XLII 1; (15) XLIII 1;
(16) XLIV 1; (17) XLV 1; (18) XLVI 1; (19) XL VII 1
and (20) L 1.

In Joshua Dr. Baer has introduced three breaks, viz.

(1) IV 1; (2) VI 1 and (3) VII 1.

In Judges he has introduced two breaks, viz. (1) VIII 1
and (2) XVIII 1.

In Samuel he has introduced six breaks, viz. (1) VII 1 ;

(2) XVIII 1; (3) XXIII 1; (4) XXIV 1; (5) XXVI 1 and

(6) 2 Sam. Ill 1.

In Isaiah he has introduced nine breaks, viz. (1) IV 1;
(2) IX 1 ; (3) XII 1 ; (4) XIV 1 ; (5) XVI 1 ; (6) XLVI 1 ;

(7) XL VII 1; (8) LXII 1 and (9) LXIV 1.

In Jeremiah he has introduced seven breaks, viz.

( 1) III 1 ; (2) VI 1 ; (3) VIII 1 ; (4) IX 1 ; (5) XX 1 ; (6) XXXI 1
and (7) XXXVIII 1.

In Ezekiel he has introduced eight breaks, viz. (1) IX 1 ;

(2) XI 1 ; (3 ) XIV 1 ; (4) XLI 1 ; (5 ) XLII 1 ; (6) XLIII 1 ;
(7) XLIV 1 and (8) XL VII 1.

In the Minor Prophets he has introduced fifteen breaks,
viz. (1) Hos. VI 1; (2) VII 1; (3) XI 1; (4) XIII 1;

(5) XIV 1; (6) Joel IV 1; (7) Jonah II 1; (8) IV 1;

(9) Hag. II 1; (10) Zech. IV 1; (11) V 1; (12) X 1;

(13) XIII 1; (14) Mai. II 1 and (15) III 1.

In Proverbs he has introduced fifteen breaks, viz.

(1) XI 1; (2) XII 1; (3) XV .; (4) XVI 1; (5) XVII 1;

(6) XVIII 1 ; (7) XIX 1 ; (8) XX 1 ; (9) XXI 1 ; (10) XXII 1 ;
(11) XXIV 1; (12) XXVI 1; (13) XXVII 1; (14) XXVIII 1
and (15) XXIX 1.

In Job he has introduced fifteen breaks, viz. (1) III 1;

(2) V 1; (3) VII 1; (4) X 1; (5) XIII 1; (6) XIV 1;

(7) XVII 1; (8) XXIV 1; (9) XXVIII 1; (10) XXX 1;

CHAP. III.] The Division into Chapters. 31

(n) XXXI i; (12) XXXIII 1; (13) XXXVII 1; (14)
XXXIX 1 and (15) XLI 1.

In the Five Megilloth he has introduced nineteen breaks,
viz. (1) Canticles II 1; (2) V 1; (3) VI 1; (4) VII 1;
(5) VIII 1 ; (6) Ruth II 1 ; (7) III 1 ; (8) IV 1 ; (9) Eccl. II 1 ;
(10) III 1; (11) VI 1; (12) VIII 1; (13) IX 1; (14) X 1;
(15) XI 1; (16) XII 1; (17) Esther V 1; (18) VII 1 and
(19) IX 1.

In Daniel he has introduced two breaks, viz. (1) IV 1
and (2) XII 1.

In Ezra-Nehemiah he has introduced two breaks, viz.
(1) Neh. VIII 1 and (2) XI 1.

In Chronicles he has introduced ten breaks, viz.
(1) 1 Chron. XV 1; (2) XXII 1 ; (3) 2 Chron. II 1; (4) III 1;
(5) XII 1 ; (6) XVII 1 ; (7) XXI 1 ; (8) XXII 1 ; (9) XXIV 1
and (10) XXVI 1.

It must be distinctly understood that the question
here is not whether these breaks, or any of them, are
justified by the sense of the respective passages or not.
They may all be in perfect harmony with the context:
but what we maintain is that they are most assuredly against
the Massoretic division, and as such are to be repudiated
in an edition which professes to be in accordance with the
Massorah.

Chap. IV.
Sedarim.

II. The Sedarim (D^TTD) or the Triennial Pericopes ex-
hibit the second division of the text. The Grammatico-
Massoretic Treatise which precedes the Yemen MSS. of
the Pentateuch distinctly declares that the Sedarim dire
the Pericopes of the Triennial cycle which obtained in many
communities. "There are/' it says, "places where they read
through the Law in three years. Hence the Pentateuch is
divided into one hundred and fifty-four Sections called
Sedarim, so that one Seder is read on each Sabbath. Ac-
cordingly the Law is finished at the end of every three
years." l As this was the Palestinian practice ( comp.
Megilla 2gb), and as the European communities follow
the Babylonian or Annual cycle, the Sedarim which exhibit
the more ancient division of the text have been totally
ignored in most MSS. Even the modern editions of the
so-called Massoretic Hebrew Bibles, which state at the end
of each book that it contains such and such a number of
Sedarim, give no indication whatever as to where, in the
text, any Seder occurs.

Jacob ben Chayim, the first editor of the Bible with
the Massorah (Venice 1524 — 25), assures us in his elaborate
Introduction that if he had found this Massoretic division

™tib rninn n« ppbnai d^ip vibvz minn na pa^trarc rnaipa wi 1
iKxaai mo nn^ ban i*np^ na d-tid pmpan |m nrsna rwuti a^am
:D"3t» vbv s^iaa minn nx pa^tpa or. 2348, foi. 25 b; Or. 2349, foi. 16a;

Or. 2364, foi. I2a; Or. T379, foi. 21b.

CHAP. IV. | Sedarim. 33

of the text he would have followed it in preference to
the Christian chapters which he adopted from R. Nathan's
Hebrew Concordance. Having, however, obtained the List
when he had nearly carried the Bible through the press he
says: "I have published it separately so that it may not
be lost in Israel." '

But, though the Massoretic Treatise, referred to above,
distinctly tells us that the Pentateuch is divided into
154 Stdarim, yet in the analysis of each book as well
as in the separate enumeration of each Seder it as
distinctly specifies 167 such Sedarim. Thus on Genesis
it not only says that it contains 45 Sedarim,1 but g'ives
the catchword or verse for every one of them. The same
is the case with Exodus which it divides into 33 Sedarim;
with Leviticus which it divides into 25 Sedarim; with Numbers
which it divides into $$ Sedarim: and with Deuteronomy
which it divides into 31 Sedarim. Besides this minute
description and division given in the Massoretic Treatise
itself, the Massorah Parva of Or. 2349 gives in the margin
against the several places where such a Seder occurs in the
Annual Cycle, the number of each Seder. Thus on Peri-
cope Bereshith [= Gen. I 1 — V 8] the Massorah Peirva
remarks on Gen. I 1 it contains four Sedarim and this is
the first Seder.'-' On II 4 it has >JtP TID this is the second

"»d jro pnT ■an nsoa wzrw nrtjnsn npinnn pfcrrt Tonsnn pb '
,;?x* ,-z mp p-v ]$tob ,'^bz jE'cn ,*;ins s*::;2 now Tttroi riraBTnpnpn
yzn inr ttpi ,tnptin biz moan *bvz ipbrrc? nrsnan npibn K2fl» tpti
*nnoK Tittbtpn ayaa -osw nn*6 t^ wan -p nnxi »nnbitfa naaia »onw6
ibnra laitm ronwn nzn ,xn ca mrann'? Comp. introduction, vol. I, foi. 3/'

with fol. 6a -b Venice 1524—25; Jacob b. Chayim's Introduction to the
Rabbinic Bible, Hebrew and English, p. 8 1 &c. ed. Ginsburg, London 1867

Comp. mo trwuri n»»n o^f» ntpna Trr ffw n?n nscn ■a jn 2

or. 2348, fol. 25/;; Or. 2349, fol. 16a; Or. 2350, fol. 33/'; Or. 1379, fol. 21/;.

•iron tid m rSynno h rz Br :i

34 Introduction. [ CHAl*. IV.'

Seder. On III 22 it states wbv VI D the third Seder and
on (ien. V 1 it has W^l VTD //*£ fourth Seder. There can,
therefore, be no doubt that the Massoretic School, from
which these MSS. proceeded, divided the Pentateuch into
107 Sedarim. It is, however, certain that other Massoretic
vSchools divided it into 158 Sedarim and that others again
divided it into 154.

The different divisions which obtained in the different
Massoretic Schools with regard to these Sedarim, will best
be seen when the authorities which have transmitted them
are carefully analysed. And here ag*ain it is necessary to
separate the Pentateuch from the Prophets and Hagiographa.

For the Pentateuch I have collated the following MSS.
in the British Museum: Orient. 2348, folio 25a— 29a; Orient.
2349, folio iba— 18#; Orient. 2350, folio 23a — 28a; Orient.
2364, folio 12a — i$a, and Orient. 1379, folio 21a — 24b. The
live MSS. of the Pentateuch are from Yemen and are preceded
bv the Grammatico-Massoretic Treatise already referred to. It
is from these MSS. together with the List in the Madrid MS.
No. 1 that I have printed the Summary of contents at the
end of every hebdomadal Lesson IflttHD). I have moreover
collated the special Lists in Orient. 2201, folio 2 a— 3 a;
Orient. 4227, folio 273a — &, and Add. 15251, folio 2a-b, as
well as the printed List in the first edition of Jacob b.
Chayim Rabbinic Bible Vol. 1, folio 6a, Venice 1524 — 25.
Orient. 2201 which is dated A. D. 1246 is of special importance
since it not only has a separate List of the Sedarim, but
marks every Seder in the margin of the text itself with
D against the place where it begins, thus leaving no doubt
as to which verse it belongs. The same is the case with
Oriental 2451 which contains the Pentateuch, the Haph-
taroth and the Psalms. In this MS., which is in a Persian
hand, the Sedarim are also marked in the margin of
the text.

CHAP. IV. | Sedarim. 35

Genesis. — Not only do all the five Yemen MSS. state
that this book has forty-five Sedarim, but they give the
Pericope and verse for each Seder. Even Or. 2201 which
gives in the List forty-three Sedarim, states in the Masso-
retic Summary at the end of Genesis (folio 27 b) that Ge-
nesis has 0TB D'TTD) forty-five Sedarim. The variations in the
other MSS. are as follows: (1) The sixth Seder, viz. VIII 1
which is given in all the five Yemen MSS. and in all the
Lists, is omitted in the margin of the text in Oriental 2201
and in the editio princeps. (2) The ninth Seder, viz. XI 1
which is not only given in all the five Yemen MSS., but
is marked in the margin of the text in Oriental 2201 is
omitted in all the Lists and by Dr. Baer. (3) There is
no Seder given for XII 1 in the Yemen MSS. and in the
List in Oriental 42 2 7, though it is marked in the margin
of the text in Oriental 2201 and is given in the Lists of
Oriental 2201, of Add. 15251, of the editio princeps and of Dr.
Baer. (4) XVII 1 which is given in all the Lists as the four-
teenth Seder is not marked in the Yemen MSS. nor in the
text of Oriental 2201. (5) XXI 22 is marked in the margin
of the text in Oriental 2201 instead of XXII 1, which
is given not only in all the other MSS., but in the List
of this very MS. (6) XXII 20 which is given in all the
five Yemen MSS. as the nineteenth Seder is not given in
any of the Lists, nor is it marked in the text in Oriental
2201. (7) XL 1 is not only given in all the five Yemen
MSS. as the thirty-sixth Seder, but is marked in the margin
of the text in Oriental 2201. It is, however, omitted in all
the Lists and by Dr. Baer. And (8) XLIX 27 which is
given in all the five Yemen MSS. and is marked in the
margin of the text, both in Oriental 2201 and Oriental 2451,
is omitted in all the Lists and by Dr. Baer.

It is to be regreted that Oriental 2451, which marks
the Sedarim in the margin of the text and manifestly exhibits

36 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

a Persian recension, is imperfect. Of the twenty-three
Sedarim, marked in the Massorah Parva, eighteen coincide
with our recension, two, viz. XL i and XLIX 27, support
the Yemen recension, whilst three, viz. XXVI 13; XLII 1
and 9, have hitherto been unknown.

Exodus. — Both in the Summary of the contents of
Exodus and in the specific references to each Seder all
the five Yemen MSS., and Orient. 2451 state that this book
has thirty-three Sedarim. As Add. 1525 1, Orient. 4227 and
the printed List distinctly state that it has 29 Sedarim,
whilst the List of Orient, 2201 as distinctly enumerates 27, it
is evident that the three different Lists proceed from different
Massoretic Schools. In the text itself, however, Orient. 2201
marks 30 Sedarim which approximates more nearly to the
Yemen recension. The following analysis will show wherein
these recensions differ: (1) The second Seder, viz. Exod. II 1,
which is given in all the five Yemen MSS., is omitted in
Add. 1 525 1, Orient. 4227, Or. 2201, both in the text and
in the List, in Oriental 2451 and in the printed List.
1 2 ) The sixteenth Seder, viz. Exod. XIX 6 is omitted in
the List of Orient. 2201. (3) The ninteenth Seder, viz.
Exod. XXIII 20, which is not only given in all the five
Yemen MSS., but is marked in the margin of the text in
Or. 2201 and Or. 2451, is omitted in Add. 15251, Or. 4227, in
the List of Or. 2201 and in the printed List. (4) The twenty-
fifth Seder, viz. Exod. XXXI, is omitted in the text of
Or. 2201. (5) The twenty-eighth Seder, viz. Exod. XXXIV 1,
which is given in all the five Yemen MSS. and is marked
in the margin of the text in Or. 2451, is omitted in Add.
1 525 1, Orient. 4227, Orient. 2201, both in the text and in
the List, as well as in the printed List. (6) The twenty-
ninth Seder, viz. Exod. XXXIV 27 is omitted in the
List of Orient. 2201 and in the printed List, whilst (7) the
thirtieth Seder, viz. Exod. XXXIV 30 is omitted in

CHAP. IV.] Sedarim. 37

Add. 1-525,1, Orient. 4227, in the List of Orient. 2201 and
in the printed List.

The Persian recension, though like the Yemen MSS.,
says in the Massoretic Summary at the end of Exodus that
it has thirty-three Sedarim, yet marks 34 in the Massorah
Parva. This recension omits two Sedarim, viz. Exod. II 1 ;
XVI 4 and has three which do not exist in our recension,
viz. IX 1; XII 1 and XXXVI 8.

Leviticus. — It is equally certain that the difference in
the List of Sedarim extended also to Leviticus. Thus
whilst all the five Yemen MSS. distinctly state in the
Summary that this book has twenty-five Sedarim and
minutely enumerates each Seder under every Pericope, yet
Orient. 15251, Orient. 4227, Orient. 2801 in the List and
the printed List give the number as twenty-three. And
though Orient. 2201 also marks twenty-three in the text,
the Sedarim differ in several instances from the separate List
in this very MS. These differences will be best understood
by the following analysis: (1) Seder 3, viz. Levit. V 1,
which is given in all the five Yemen MSS., is omitted in
Add. 1 525 1, Or. 4227, Or. 2201, both in the text and in
the List, and in the printed List. (2) Levit. V 20 is marked
as a Seder in the text of Orient. 2201, but is not given in
any of the other MSS., nor in the List of this very MS.

(3) The same is the case with Levit. XXII 1 which is
marked as a Seder in Or. 2201, but is not given in any
of the other MSS., nor in the List of this MS. itself.

(4) Levit. XXII 17 which is given as a Seder in all the
other MSS., as well as in the List of Orient. 2201, is not
marked in the text of this MS. (5 1 The twentieth Seder,
viz. Levit. XXIII 9 which is given in all the five Yemen
MSS., is omitted in Add. 15251, Or. 4227, Orient. 2201,
both in the text and in the List, and in the printed List.
(6) Leviticus XXIII 15 is marked as a Seder in Add. 1525 1,

38 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

Orient. 4227, Orient. 2201, both in the text and in the
List, as well as in the printed List, but is omitted in all
the five Yemen MSS., whilst (7) the twenty-third Seder,
which is given in all the other MSS. as well as in the
List of Orient. 2201, is omitted in the text of this MS.
According- to the statement at the end of Leviticus the
Persian recension preserved in Oriental 2451, Leviticus
has only twenty-three Sedarim. But, though it agrees
with the ordinary Lists as far as the number is concerned,
it differs in the places where these Sedarim occur. The
extent of this difference, however, cannot be fully ascer-
tained, since it only marks nineteen out of the twenty-three
in the Massorah Parva. The six Sedarim which are not
marked are as follows: XXII 17, XXIII 9, XXIV 1,
XXV 14, 35 and XXVI 3. Two of these are from the
Yemen recension, viz. XXIII 9 and XXIV 1. From the
ordinary recension, therefore, there are only four not
marked. But in the nineteen which this MS. gives, there
are two variations, both from the Yemen and ordinarv
recensions. Thus it omits the fourth Seder = VI 1 2 which
all the other MSS. mark, whilst it gives XVI 1 as the
thirteenth Seder which is not to be found in any of the
other Lists.

Numbers. — Though the Yemen recension has only one
Seder more in Numbers than the other recensions, yet the
Lists exhibit variations in other respects as will be seen
from the following analysis: ( 1 ) The sixth Seder, viz. VI 1
which is given in all the five Yemen MSS., is omitted in
Add. 1 525 1, Or. 4227, Or. 2201, both in the text and in the
List, as well as in the printed List. (2) The tenth, (3) eleventh
and (4) seventeenth Sedarim, viz. Numb. X 1 ; XI 1 6 and
XVII 16, are omitted in the text of Or. 2201, though they
are given in the List of this MS. (5) Numb. XVIII 25
is given as a Seder in Add. 1525 1, Or. 4227, Or. 2201, both

CHAP. IV. | Sedarim. 39

in the text and in the List, as well as in the printed List,
but is no Seder in any of the five Yemen MSS., whilst
1 6) the eighteenth Seder, viz. Numb. XIX i which is given
in all the five Yemen MSS., is omitted in Add. 15251,
Or. 4227, Or. 2 20 1, both in the text and in the List, and
in the printed List. (7) The twentieth and (8J twenty-second
Sedarim, viz. Numb. XXII 2 and XXV 1, are omitted in
the text of Or. 2201, but given in the List of this MS.

As Or. 245 1 which is defective after Number XXVIII 28,
marks only twenty-six out of the thirty-three Sedarim.
The variations exhibited in these twenty-six Sedarim are
as follows: (1) It marks the second Seder against II 10
and not against IL i} which is given both in the Yemen
MSS. and in the ordinary Lists. (2) Like the ordinary Lists
it does not mark VI r, which is the sixth Seder in the
Yemen MSS. And (3) it agrees with the ordinary recension
in giving XV III 25 as the seventeenth Seder which is
omitted in the Yemen MSS. The printed Massorah at the
end of Numbers has it m VTTD1 N"D ,yb VVID\

Deuteronomy. — In Deuteronomy, too, we have two re-
censions of the Lists of Sedarim. The Yemen recension, which
is given in all the five Yemen MSS., distinctly states that
this book contains thirty-one Sedarim, and the Lists minutely
give the verse of every Seder in each Pericope, whilst the
recension in the other MSS. give twenty Sedarim which
are duly numbered. The following analysis will show
the differences in these recensions. Four Sedarim, viz. Nos.
5, 13, 18 and 20, i. e. Deut. IV 25; XIII 2; XVIII 14 and
XXI 10, which are given in the Lists of all the five
Yemen MSS., are omitted in the Lists of Add. 1525 1,
Oriental 4227, Oriental 2201, both in the List and in the
text, as well as in the printed List; whilst Seder No. 24
is omitted in the text of Oriental 2201, but is contained
in the List of this MS. Oriental 2451 is defective. It

40 Introduction. [CHAI> IV.

begins with Deuteronomy XI 18 and ends with XXXII 7.
As it only marks one Seder, viz. XXXI 14 it is impossible
to say whether the Persian recension had anv variations
in this book.

As to the relation of the Sedarim to the Open and
Closed Sections; 151 out of 167 coincide with one or the
other of these Sections. Only 16 have no corresponding-
break in the text. They are as follows:

12 in Genesis, viz. Sedarim

(1) No. 6 = chap. VIII 1:

(2) No. 9 = chap. XI 1 ;

(3) No. 15 = chap. XIX 1 ;

(4) No. 2 = chap. XXIV 42;

(5) No. 25 = chap. XXVII 28;
16) No. 26 = chap. XXVIII 10;

(7) No. 27 = chap. XXIX 31 ;

(8) No. 28 = chap. XXX 22:

(9) No. 29 = chap. XXXI 3;
( 10) No, 38 = chap. XLI 38,
(in No. 39 = chap. XLII 18;
(12) No. 40 = chap. XLIII 12.

1 in Exodus, viz. No. 16 = chap. XIX 6;

1 in Leviticus, viz. No. 22 = chap. XXV 14;

1 in Numbers, viz. No. 21 = chap. XXIII 10; and

1 in Deuteronomy, viz. No. 18 = chap. XVIII 14.

For the Former Prophets I have collated the following
MSS.: Orient. 2210 and Orient. 2370. These are Yemen
MSS. and give the Sedarim in the margin of the text
against the verse which commences the Seder. I have
moreover collated Or. 2201 and Harley 5720, which also give
the Sedarim in the margin of the text against the respec-
tive passages, as well as Arundel Or. 16. This splendid MS.
not only gives every Seder in its proper place against
the text, but has a separate List of the Sedarim at the

CHAP; IV. I Sedarim. 41

end of every book, giving the verse with which each Seder
begins and the number of the Seder. Besides these 1 have
collated the List in Add. 1525 1 with the List in the editio
princeps of Jacob b. Chayim and with Dr. Baer's Lists,
given in the Appendices to the several parts of his
Hebrew Bible.

Joshua. — All the MSS. agree that Joshua has fourteen
Sc thiii m, and there is only one instance in which the Ye-
men MSS. exhibit a different recension. Both in the text
itself and in the separate Lists the MSS., with the one
exception, mark the Sedarim substantially in the same
places and give the same verse for the commencement of
each Seder in the respective Lists. The List published
in the editio princeps of Jacob b. Chayim's Rabbinic Bible,
is a faithful reproduction of the MSS. other than of
Yemen recension.

The Yemen recension gives Josh. VIII 1 as the fourth
Seder and omits XIV 15 which constitutes the ninth Seder
in our recension, thus making up the fourteen Sedarim.

The List which Dr. Baer gives in the Appendix to,
his edition of Joshua is in no fewer than six instances in
flagrant contradiction to the unanimous testimony of the
Massorah. They are as follows: (1) Dr. Baer gives as the
third Seder nm \V^ IDni ,^3 VWDl V"P1 V 1, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text ag*ainst IV 24, and
all the Lists give fijn \VEb = IV 24 as the catchword.
2 1 He gives the fifth Seder VIII 30, which is supported
by only one MS., viz. Orient. 2201, whereas all the other
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against VIII 33
and all the Lists give V}pV\ ^XltP* ^31 = VIII 33 as the
catchword. (3) He gives the seventh Seder py yfiW2 *iTl
11Vn -[^£ XI 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against X 42 and all the Lists give
0*3^0n b2 fix! = X 42 as the catchword. (4) He gives the

42 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

ninth Seder JTTW '33 flBO^ ^Wl Wl XV i, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XIV 15,
and all the Lists give D^D^ p"Qn DTP1 = XIV 15 as the
catchword. (5) He gives the eleventh Seder ^TOil N¥*l
pUBE^ Wil XIX 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XVIII 28, and all the Lists
give P6an I^¥1 = XVIII 28 as the catchword. (61 He
gives for the twelfth Seder m^mn fl^K "inn ," "QT1 XX i
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XIX 51, and all the Lists quote simply finnan H^X
= XIX 51 as the catchword. And (7) he gives the
fourteenth Seder nnK D^m DOT W1 XXIII i, whereas all
the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against
XXII 34, and all the Lists give pi JO '33 IJOp'1 = XXII 34
as the catchword. It will thus be seen that in half the
number of the Sedarim in Joshua Dr. Baer's List con-
tradicts the Massorah.

Judges. — There is no different recension preserved in
the Yemen MSS. of the Sedarim in Judges. All the
Codices state that this book has fourteen Sedarim and all
mark the same passages where thev begin. In this book
too Dr. Baer in his List departs in no fewer than six
out of the fourteen instances from the unanimous testimony
of the Massorah, as will be seen from the following
analysis: (1) He gives *y2 TDK* p VOl ,^mtP >33 1W1
fyiKVI 1, as the fourth Seder, whereas all the MSS. mark
it in the margin of the text against V 31, and all the Lists
give ^3H3K*p = V 31 as the catchword. (2) He gives
for the fifth Seder pJH2l X1H ^31 V D3EH VII 1, whereas
all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against
VI 40, and all the Lists give p D'H^X Wl = VI 40 as the
catchword. (3) He gives for the sixth Seder pm3 K3'1
PtfTTn VIII 4, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against VIII 3, and all the Lists give DDT2"

CHAP. IV.] Sedarim. 43

D^Ht'X \Dj = VIII 3 as the catchword. 1 4; He gives for
the tenth Seder KT1 nrOBJI ptP&TP TT1 XIV 1, whereas all
the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XIII 24,
and all the Lists give p HEW! T^m = XIII 24 as the
catchword. (5) He gives as the eleventh Seder ^nx 'JTl
ptPEttf 33tn inm ,p XVI 4, whereas all the MSS. mark
it in the margin of the text against XVI 3, and all the
Lists give simply ptPBtP 23W\ = XVI 3 as the catchword.
And (6) he gives D^jXH ntP£n t3^1 XVIII 7 as the
twelfth Seder, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of
the text against XVIII 6 and all the Lists give Di"6 IBtPl
lfDn = XVIII 6 as the catchword. Here again Dr. Baer's
List contradicts in nearly half the instances the statement
of the Massorah.

Samuel. — In the MSS. and in the early editions of the
Bible Samuel is not divided. Hence the Massorah treats it
as one book, The Sedarim are, therefore, numbered con-
tinuously without any reference to 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel.
Here too all the MSS. are unanimous that Samuel has
34 Sedarim, and the Yemen recension exhibits only two
variations, viz. the sixth Seder which the Yemen MSS.
mark against X 25, whereas the other MSS. give it X 24 a
verse earlier; and the thirteenth Seder which the Yemen
MSS. mark against XX 5, whereas it is marked in the other
MSS. against XX 4, also one verse earlier. In Dr. Baer's
List, however, there are no fewer than fourteen deviations
from the Massorah: ( 1) He gives for the second Seder
WD bx nnonn mpbx -p>n II n, whereas all the MSS. mark
it in the margin of the text against II 10, and all the Lists
give "D»*ia irilT m.T = II 10 as the catchword. (2) He gives
as the fifth Seder W>p IBtn pa>:nO TIN t^X W1 IX 1, whereas
alJ the MSS. mark the Seder in the margin of the text
against IX 2, and all the Lists give p HM lV] = IX 2 as the
catchword. 131 He gives as the tenth Seder ^\Xtf p6tP1

44 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

^ t\X D^K^E XVI i9; whereas all the MSS. mark the
Seder in the margin of the text against XVI 18, and all
the Lists give DnXttTtB TJ1X Jin = XVI 18 as the catchword.
(4) He gives as the fourteenth Seder JO fimTI "fi^ Dp'l XXI 1,
whereas all the MSS. mark the Seder in the margin of the
text against XX 42, and all the Lists give 7r6 ffDWV "10*01
— XX 42 as the catchword. (5) He gives as the seven-
teenth Seder V 7m ^3*6 7H 10*01 XXV 32, whereas all
the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XXV 33,
and all the Lists give "JOtfB *yTU1 = XXV 33 as the catch-
word. (6) He gives as the twentieth Seder b$ TTT feO*l
nbW) frpX XXX 26, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XXX 25, and all the Lists give
Xinn DVHO 'iTI = XXX 25 as the catchword. (7) He gives
as the twenty-first Seder xn¥ ItP 13 p 133X1 2 Sam. II 8,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against II -, and all the Lists give PUpOTn HDpl = II 7 as
the catchword. (8) He gives as the twenty-third Sedei
D\DK^O 13C "[^0 D1T! rfttP'l V n, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against V 10, and all
the Lists give llbn TTT 1^1 = V 10 as the catchword.
(9) He gives as the twenty-fourth Seder m^l 711 mpfin SO'I
VII 18, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against VII 16, and all the Lists give "jnrteOI yV3 p&OT-
VII 16 as the catchword. (10) He gives as the twenty-fifth
Seder 10P ItPX DXM1 3NV EW1 X 13, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against X 12, and all the
Lists give p?nf131 pTT = X 12 as the catchword. (11) He
gives as the twenty-seventh Seder 3KV *?$ "J^on 10*01 XIV 21,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against
XIII 2^ and all the Lists give D1^tP3N b)H "f?On 10*01 =
XIII 25 as the catchword. (12) He gives as the thirty-
second Seder H^irl ~p£n 13m XIX 41, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XIX 40,

CHAP. IV.] Sedarim. 45

and all the Lists give UVn to "Din = XIX 40 as the
catchword. (13) Pie gives as the thirty -third Seder
>#>!& ^ TH 10K*1 XX 6, whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the marg'in of the text against XXI 7, and all the Lists
give "J^On *?»nn = XXI 7 as the catchword. And (14)
he gives as the thirty-fourth Seder D^inxn TH '131 H^Xl
XX 111 1, whereas all the MSS. mark the Seder in the
margin of the text ag'ainst XXII 51, and all the Lists
give miW ^TIO = XXII 51 as the catchword.

Kings. — Like Samuel, the division of King's into two
books, so far as the Hebrew text is concerned, is of modern
origin. It does not occur in the MSS. nor in the early
editions. The Massorah treats it as one book, and in the
enumeration of the Sedarim the numbers are continuous.
The separate Lists in Oriental 1525 1, Arundel Oriental 16,
as well as the one in the editio princeps of Jacob b. Chayim's
Rabbinic Bible, enumerate thirty-five Sedarim in the Book
of Kings. This is more or less confirmed by the following
MSS. : Oriental 2370, Oriental 2210, Arund. Oriental 16,
Harley 5720 and Oriental 2201, which mark the Sedarim
in the margin of the text ag'ainst the respective verses
with which they begin. The two Yemen MSS., however,
exhibit several variations which have been preserved by
the School of Massorites to which they belong. Thus Seder
thirteen, viz. XV 9 is a verse earlier, viz. verse 8. For Seder
twenty-one which in our recension is 2 Kings IV 26,
the Yemen recension gives *p D1H "IftJOl = 2 Kings VI 6,
which is also marked as Seder in the margin of the text
in Oriental 2201. Seder thirty is also a verse earlier, viz.
XVIII 5 instead of XVIII 6, whilst the following six
Sedarim are not marked at all: No. 7 = VIII 11; No. 21 =
2 Kings IV 26; No. 25 = 2 Kings X 15; No. 32 = 2 Kings
XX 8: No. 34 = 2 Kings XXIII 25 and No. 35 = = 2 Kings
XXIV 18.

46 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

For the Latter Prophets I have collated the following
MSS.: Oriental 22 11 which is the only Yemen MS. of the
Latter Prophets in the British Museum, and it is greatly
to be regretted that I have not been able to find another
MS. of this School, since it exhibits a recension of the
Sedarim different in many respects from that preserved
in the other Codices. I have also collated Oriental 2201,
Harley 5720 and Arundel Oriental 16, which also mark the
Sedarim in the margin of the text. Besides these I have
collated the separate Lists in Add. 15251, Arundel
Oriental 16 and in the editio princeps of Jacob b. Chayim's
Rabbinic Bible with Dr. Baer's Lists given in the
Appendices to the several parts of his Hebrew Bible.

Isaiah. — All the Codices and the separate Lists mark
the Sedarim in Isaiah as twenty-six in number. The Yemen
recension, however, preserved in Oriental 22 11 exhibits
very striking variations. Thus in more than half the in-
stances the Sedarim which are marked in the margin of the
text are in different places: (r) The second Seder is pH¥ "HEN
= 111 10 instead of IV 3. (2) The fourth Seder is VIII 13
instead of VI 3. (3) The tenth Seder is XXV 8 instead
of XXV 1. (4) The twelfth Seder is XXX 8 instead of
XXIX 23. (5) The thirteenth Seder is XXXII 17 instead
of XXXII 18. (6) The sixteenth Seder is XXXIX 8 instead
of XL 1. (7) The eighteenth Seder is XLIII 31 instead
of XLIV 6. Harley 5720 has also this Seder in XLIII 31.

(8) The twentieth Seder is XLVIII 9 instead of XL VIII 2.

(9 ) The twenty-first Seder is LI 1 1 instead of XLIX 26.

(10) The twenty-second Seder is LIV 10 instead of LII 7.

(11) The twenty-third Seder is LVII 14 instead of LV 13.

(12) The twenty-fourth Seder is LIX 20 instead of LVIII 14.
Harley 5720 has also this Seder on LIX 20. (.13) The twenty-
fifth Seder is LXIII 7 instead of LXI 9, (1.4), whilst the
twenty -sixth Seder is LXV 16 instead of LXV 9.

CHAP. IV.] Sedarim. 47

Dr. Baer, who professes to give the received List, has
in no fewer than nineteen instances altered the Massorah. Thus
I 1) for the second Seder he gives p*5f rTO3 riN¥ HX WW JTH OX
IV 4, whereas all the MSSV with the exception of course
of the Yemen Codex, put the Seder against IV 3 in the
margin of the texts, and the Lists give fV¥D TKttttfl iTffl
IV 3 as the catchword. (2) He gives the third Seder
D'DDH mBN Wl VI 4, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against VI 3, and all the Lists give
H? b\H PR Klpl = VI 3 as the catchword. (3) He gives the fourth
Seder 2pW2 " n^ttf 131 IX 7, whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the margin of the text against IX 6, and all the Lists give
HWOPI PQI Dt> = IX 6 as the catchword. (4) He gives as
the fifth Seder W Wft IBn xm XL 1, whereas all the MSS.
with the exception of Harley 5720, mark it in the
margin of the text against XI 2, and all the Lists give
" ITH VbV nrfil = XI 2 as the catchword. (5) He gives
as the sixth Seder lb " PI^H DVn flVT XIV 3, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XIV 2,
and all the Lists give &£V Dinp^l = XIV 2 as the catch-
word. (6) He gives as the eighth Seder PnTTIMC jmn H2 HW2
XX 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XIX 25, and all the Lists give m,T "Din "It^X =
XIX 25 as the catchword. (7) He gives as the ninth Seder
nV2X ibfyn *l¥ XW& XXIII 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text against XXII 2^, and all the Lists
give "rm VTOpm = XXII 23 as the catchword. (8) He gives
as the tenth Seder y^^X HDX »p6k " XXV i, whereas all
the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XXIV 2^,
and all the Lists give PUsSl PHOni = XXIV 23 as the catch-
word. (9) He gives as the eleventh Seder mXJ mBP 'IPI
XXV ILL 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against XXVII 13, and all the Lists give
KIPin DV3 iTm = XXVII 13 as the catchword. (10) He gives

48 Introduction. [CHAK IV

as the twelfth Seder DnTlD &12 'in XXX i, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XXIX z$7
and all the Lists give 1H^ in*On ^ = XXIX 25 as the
catchword. (11) He gives as the fourteenth Seder VI^XI 'iTI
7(W TVWV XXXVI 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XXXV io; and all the Lists give
pW niiT " '1131 = XXXV 10 as the catchword. (12) He
gives as the fifteenth Seder po« p WVW T\bW\ XXXVII 21,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXXVII 20, and all the Lists give irnSs " fifim =
XXXVII 20 as the catchword. (13) He gives as the nine-
teenth Seder PETD bXTW* inm ,itD »3 XLV 18, whereas all
the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XLV 17,
and all the Lists give "n VWM b&tWi = XLV 17 as the
catchword. (14) He gives as the twentieth Seder ntlEWin
'JTUin »X£ XLVIII 3, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XLVIII 2; and all the Lists give
tTlpn TUB >3 = XLVIII 2 as the catchword. (15) He gives as
the twenty-first Seder flinnD nSD H? 'X " ION nj L 1, whereas
all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against
XLIX 26, and all the Lists give "plft flK Vltakm = XLIX26
as the catchword. (16) He gives as the twenty-third Seder
BStPE T\iy& " ibx nr LVI 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the margin of the text against LV 13, and all the Lists give
^1¥!ttn nnn = LV 13 as the catchword. (17) He gives as
the twenty-fourth Seder " T niXp ifr p LIX 1, whereas
all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against
LVIII 14, and all the Lists give TjVnn »X = LV1II 14 as the
catchword. (i8j He gives as the twenty-fifth Seder tP1£*
"2 tf'tPN LXI 10, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against LXI 9, and all the Lists give
Q'IjD SHIjI = LXI 9 as the catchword. And (19) he gives as
the twenty-sixth Seder tPITnn K2ftr "IttfiO " n»K n3 LXV 8,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text

CHAP. IV. | Sedarim. 49

against LXV 9, and all the Lists give DpP'B TliOtim =
LXV 9 as the catchword.

Jeremiah. — Both in the margin of the text and in
the Lists of our recension the number of Sedarim in
Jeremiah is given as thirty-one. The recension preserved
in the Yemen Codex Or. 2211, however, not only gives
twenty-eight, omitting XXIII 6, XXIX 18 and LI 10 marked
in our Lists Nos. 12, 22 and 30, but has the following
important deviations: (1) The second Seder is III 12 instead
of III 4. (2) The third Seder is V 18 instead of V 1.
(3) The sixth Seder is XI 5 instead of IX 23. (4) The
tenth Seder is XIX 14 instead of XVIII 19. (5) The
eleventh Seder is XXII 16 instead of XX 13. (6) The
fourteenth Seder is XXVI 15 instead of XXVI 1. (7) The
eighteenth Seder is XXXI 35 instead of XXXI 33.

(8) The nineteenth Seder is XXXII 41 instead of XXXII 22.

(9) The twentieth Seder is XXXIII 26 instead of XXXIII 15.

(10) The twenty-eighth Seder is XLIX 2 instead of
XL VIII 12; (n) whilst the twenty-ninth Seder is L 20
instead of L 5. Of the twenty-eight Sedarim, therefore,
which this recension gives, it coincides in seventeen
passages with the received List.

In the received List there is a variation in the MSS.
with regard to the twentieth Seder. The Lists in Add. 1525 1,
and in the editio princeps give it JJEHH Dili! DW2 = Jerem.
XXXIII 16 and the Yemen Codex and Harley 5720 mark the
Seder in the margin of the text against this verse, whilst
Oriental 2201, which is one of the oldest dated MSS., marks
it in the margin of the text against rPft¥K Dili"! UW2 =
XXXIII 16 which I have adopted.

As to Dr. Baer's List, it is utterly at variance with
the Massorah in no fewer than fifteen instances. ( 1) He gives
the second Seder nb*\Vb T]»m irm ,'^H " 1QK*1 III 6,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text

50 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

against III 4 and all the Lists give nni?» KlSl = III 4
as the catchword. (2) He gives the sixth Seder DW nil
WHlT nxm DX >3 nnm ,D\S%n IX 24, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against IX 23 and
the Lists give nx?n DX *3 = IX 23 as the catchword.
(3) He gives the eighth Seder ^3fn E^H mm ,^K " IDX'!
D^H XV ij which I have inadvertantly followed, whereas
all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XIV 22
and all the Lists give Dnan »tem tTM = XIV 22 as the catch-
word. (4 ) He gives the twelfth Seder ir\21 ,D*K3 D'B' H3H ]2b
iTrirT mrin V^a XXIH 7, whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the margin of the text against XXIH 6 and the Lists give
rmiT Win VB*3 — XXIH 6 as the catchword. (5) He gives
the thirteenth Seder HX Dn Vin^tm 1J-Q1 ,iTH ntPX "Din
3"inn XXV 1, whereas all the MSS., with the exception
of the Yemen Codex, mark it in the margin of the text
against XXIV 7 and the Lists give 3*7 DH^ 'DDT! = XXIV 7
as the catchword. (6) He gives the fifteenth Seder
DpnT ro^OE JTEWU XXVII 1, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against XXVII 5 and
all the Lists give nx WEW ^3X = XXVII 5 as the
catchword. (7 ) He gives the sixteenth S<?<&?r ," "1QK H3 *3
D'frtP DX ItPTn inn XXIX 8, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text against XXIX 7 and all the
Lists give Dl^tr DX ItnTI = XXIX 7 as the catchword.
(8) Lie gives the seventeenth Seder ;i2V XTfl Ss HflXI
" DX HDP! nnm XXX 10, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text against XXX 9 and all the Lists
give mm nx linn == XXX 9 as the catchword. (9) He
gives the nineteenth Seder >^>X m»X Hnxi IfQl ," 121 >fPl
XXXII 26, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin ot
the text against XXXII 22 and all the Lists give [Dm
JHXn DX DCft = XXXII 22 as the catchword, i 10) He gives
the twentieth Seder PtPlf) nil DW3 1JD21 " 12 N HD ^

CHAP. IV.] Sedafira. 5 1

XXXIII i 7, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of
the text either against XXXIII 15 or 16 and all the Lists
give Win nnn WW! = XXXIII 16 as the catchword.
I 11) He gives the twenty -first Seder ntPTI mm » nm TPI
D^EttTn XXXV 12, whereas all the MSvS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XXXV 10 and all the Lists
give 0^nX3 ntPTI = XXXV 10 as the catchword. (12) He
gives the twenty-second Seder ^»H PTOP1 mm ," im >m
t>X»nT DX XXXVI 27, whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the margin of the text against XXXVI 26 and all the
Lists give DX "[^.1 rWI = XXXVI 26 as the catchword.
(13) He gives the twenty-fourth Seder mm ,iTfl 1TPX 131,1
*]B^!DX at»0 *3 XL 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XXXIX 18 and all the Lists
give "[S^ftX ftbft »3 = XXXIX 18 as the catchword. (14; He
gives the twenty-sixth Seder UVn ta ^X 1IT0T nam
XLIV 24, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the
text against XLIV 20. (15) He gives the twenty-eighth Seder
" 10X fD pOP ^ XLIX i, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text against XLVII 1 2 and all the Lists
give D>xn &W nin pb = XLVIII 12 as the catchword.

Ezekiel. — According to the ordinarily received Lists,
Ezekiel has twenty-nine Sedarim. In the Yemen recension,
however, preserved in Oriental 22 11, there are only twenty-
eight, the twelfth Seder, viz. XX 41 being omitted. There
are also the following two variations: (1) The fifth Seder
is X 1 instead of X 9 and (2) the twenty-seventh Seder
is XLIV 4 instead of XLIII 27.

Dr. Baer's List exhibits the following twelve departures
from the Massorah: (1) He gives for the thirteenth Seder
-Q rbr\V\ mm » *m 'iTI XXII 17, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against XXII 16 and
all the Lists give W$h *p n^im = XXII 16 as the catch-
word. (2) He gives the fourteenth Seder VOT ,*1&X H3 *3

52 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

"pO(?)W YDtfm XXIII 28, whereas all the MSS. mark
it in the margin of the text against XXIII 27 and all the
Lists give "pa yiB? Tl3rm = XXIII 27 as the catchword.
(3) He gives the fifteenth Seder mm mm ,D"TK p rjHKl
D3^ ^XptlT XXIV 2 5; whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XXIV 24 and all the Lists give
W2b ^KpTIT mm =XXIV 24 as the catchword. (4) He gives
the sixteenth Seder ■pn* mflta mm » im Wl XXVII 1,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXVI 20 and all the Lists give HIV DK firnVTI
= XXVI 20 as the catchword. (5) He gives the seven-
teenth Seder n"H D'p6tf p pMT ,» 111 Wl XXVIII n,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXVIII 13 and all the Lists give D'iT^X ppM =

XXVIII 13 as the catchword. (6) He gives the eighteenth
Seder TVIMX KVlfl DV3 inn ," W Wl XXX i, whereas
all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against

XXIX 2 1 and all the Lists give IT02CX JOfin DVn = XXIX 2 1
as the catchword. (7) He gives the twentieth Seder

xon itw inxan ba inm ,n:t? niw ^nra \mi xxxiii 21,

whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXXIII 16 and all the Lists give *1E\X inxBn ^O
= XXXIII 16 as the catchword. (8) He gives the twenty -
first Seder Dl^tf mn Di"6 >m31 XXXIV 25, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XXXIV 26
and all the Lists give mn^DI DD1X ^flf^l = XXXIV 26 as
the catchword. [ (9) He gives the twenty-third Seder >m
MBf! pK inn » 111 XXXVIII 1, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against XXXVII 28 and
all the Lists give *3K *>3 D^n inn = XXXVII 28 as the
catchword. (10) He gives the twenty-seventh Seder
Vnpnn IPttf "p-f 'DX ntt'l XLIV i, whereas all the MSS.

-1 The C has unfortunately dropped out of the margin in my edition.

CHAP. IV.] Sedarim 53

mark it in the margin of the text against XLIII 27 and
all the Lists give DWl DN I^TI = XLIII 27 as the catch-
word. (11) He gives the twenty-eighth Seder fixn DJ?H b2
V/T XLV 16, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against XLV 15 and all the Lists give Wl
(X2CP1 p finx = XLV 15 as the catchword. And (12) he
gives the twenty-ninth Seder bfcl fill POT >rfK 1»X .13
XL VII 13, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of
the text against XLVII 12 and all the Lists give bV\ =
nbV> bmn = XLVII 12 as the catchword.

The Minor Prophets — According to the MSS. and
the separate Lists, both MS. and printed, the Minor
Prophets, which are grouped together as one book, have
twenty-one Sedarim. In the received number, however,
there is the following variation. The nineteenth Seder
is marked in the margin of the text in Oriental 2201
against Zechariah VIII 4 instead of VIII 2$ as in all the
other MSS. and Lists. For the twentieth Seder, viz.
Zech. XII 1, Add. 1525 1 and the editio princeps give the
catchword m^jl " *Q*7 Nt^tt which is manifestly a mistake
for nftjl " *)21 NtPB as TWl does not occur in Zechariah
and as the other is the catchword in Arundel Or. 16.

The Yemen recension preserved in Oriental 22 11
has only nineteen Sedarim in the Minor Prophets and
exhibits the following variations: (1) It has a Seder on
Hosea II 22 which is net in the received recension. (2) The
fifth Seder is Joel IV 8 instead of II 27. (3) The seventh
is Amos V 15 instead of V 14. (4) The tenth is Jonah IV 1 1
instead of Micah I 1. (5) The eleventh is Micah IV 7
instead of Micah IV 5. (6) The thirteenth is Habakkuk I 12
instead of I 1 and (7) the fourteenth Seder, is Zeph. I 4
instead of I 1.

Dr. Baer's List has the following fifteen departures from
the Massorah: ( 1) He gives the second Seder PQItP:! 13^

54 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

" b$ Hosea VI i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against VI 2 and all the Lists give
D^O Ij^rp — VI 2 as the catchword. (2) He gives the
fourth Seder btW ^X iTfi 1EW " W Joel I 1, whereas the
Massorah at the end of Joel distinctly declares that this
book has one Seder only (Kin fcOTD) and gives II 27 as
the Seder in question and all the Lists give 3!p *3 DfiPTl =
Joel II 27 as the catchword. The actual fourth Seder is
given in all the MSS. and Lists b®D iTHN = Hosea XIV 6.
(3) He gives the fifth Seder "yiBEW p nnx 1T1TI
Joel III i; whereas all the MSS. and all the Lists
give Joel II 27 as the fifth Seder. (4) He gives the
sixth Seder DW nil Amos I 1, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against Amos II 10
and all the Lists give W^XM ^:Xl = Amos II 10 as the
catchword. (5) He gives the eighth Seder iT"Dl? pfn Obadiah \,
whereas all the MSS. mark the Seder on Amos VII 15 and
all the Lists give inx£ " ^Hp^ = Amos VII 15 as the catch-
word. (6) He gives the ninth Seder r\ZV b$ V 131 *n*l Jonah I. 1,
contrary to the Massorah which says at the end of Jonah
that (X11D iT3 rtb) it has no Seder. All the MSS. mark
this Seder in the margin of the text against Obadiah 21
and all the Lists give D'WIB 1^1 = Obadiah 21 as the
catchword. (7) He gives the eleventh Seder irm ,8M1\1 UV2
"OV &nvn bl >3 Micah IV 6, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text against IV 5 and all the Lists
give D\9I?n bl *3 —IV 5 as the catchword. (8) He gives the
twelfth Seder 1DD mj*3 XtPtt Nahum I 1 contrary to the
Massorah which distinctly says at the end of Nahum that

KTTD iT3 frtfl, it has no Seder. All the MSS. mark this
Seder in the margin of the text against Micah VII 20 and
all the Lists give W&b HEN pin = Micah VII 20 as the catch-
word, (g) He gives the fifteenth Seder rVlli' D'fltP Djt^3

;n E?m Hag. I 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the

CHAP. IV.] Sedarim. 55

margin of the text against Zeph. Ill 20 and all the Lists
give JOHN Wnn DV2=^ Zeph. Ill 20 as the catchword. ( 10) He
gives the sixteenth Seder r\W2 >:>BtPn trim Zech. I r,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against Habakkuk II 23 and all the Lists give Nlfin UV2
n DXj = Hab. II 23 as the catchword. ( 1 1) He gives the seven-
teenth Seder HK1 PlflU HO ^K "lON'VT ,imn "[K^n W1 Zech.
IV 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the
text against IV 2 and all the Lists give flRl nn« Plfi ^X TBW1
= IV 2 as the catchword. (12) He gives the eighteenth Seder
trVT-6 mix n:tD >m Zech. VII 1-, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against VI 14 and all
the Lists give iTHD rn&Pm = VI 14 as the catchword.
(13) He gives the nineteenth Seder W)» *ttiTT ," IfiH i"D
Zech. VIII 7, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against VIII 23 and all the Lists give H3
D^n mX3¥ » "lfiH =VIII 23 as the catchword. (14) He
gives the twentieth Seder ^vm pND " 131 XtP» Zech.
IX 1, whereas all the MSS. with the exception of Oriental
2201, mark it in the margin of the text against XII 1 and
all the Lists give HEn " im XTPB = XII 1 as the catchword.
And (15) he gives the twenty -first Seder V2 » 131 NtP»
^X^tt Malachi I 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against Zech. XIV 2 1 and all the Lists
give TD ^3 mm = XIV 21 as the catchword.

The HagiographOt — For the Hagiographa I have collated
the following MSS.: Oriental 2374 and Oriental 2375 both
of which are Yemen; Oriental 2201, Oriental 4237, Harley
5710 — 11, Arundel Or. 16 and Add. 15251 as well as the
Lists of the editio princeps in the Rabbinic Bible by Jacob
ben Chayim.

The Psalms. — Both the notes in the margin of the text
in the MSS. and the separate Lists give the number of
Sedarim in the Psalms as nineteen. It is very remarkable

56 Introduction. [ CHAP. IV.

that the Sedarim preserved in the Yemen MSS. exhibit
features peculiar to the Psalter. Thus the Sedarim in
Oriental 2375 are identical with those in our recension,
whilst those preserved in Codex 2374 are totally different.
Though several leaves are missing yet this MS. has
preserved no fewer than sixteen Sedarim, not one of which
coincides with the received number, as will be seen from
the following* List. Thus Seder (1) is Ps. XXXV 1; (2) is
XXXVIII 1 ; (3) is LIX 1 ; (4) is LXV 1 ; (5) is LXIX 1 ;
(6) is LXXVIII 1 ; (7) is LXXX 1 ; (8) is LXXXVI 1 ; (9) is
XCVII 1; (10) is CIV 1; (11) is CXI 1; (.2) is CXIX 1;
(13) is CXIX 89; (14) is CXX 1; (15) is CXXX1X 1 and
(16) is CXLIV 1.

As to Dr. Baer's List, it contains the following thirteen
departures from the Massorah: ( 1) He gives the second
Seder " pH¥ '3 inm tn*3W/l hV mirf? Ps. XII 4 [?],
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XI 7 and all the Lists give " pH¥ >D = XI 7
as the catchword. (2) As reg*ards the third Seder, Oriental
2201 and Oriental 221 1 mark it in the margin of the text
against Ps. XX 10 and this is confirmed by all the three
Lists, viz. Add. 15251, Oriental 4227 and the editio princeps,
whereas Harley 5710 — 11 and Arundel Oriental 16 mark it
against Ps. XXI 1, which is followed by Dr. Baer. (3) Dr. Baer
gives the fourth Seder ?1B^ W " *lfDl ,TtP TIQTB, a mistake
for IMfr, Ps. XXX 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the margin of the text against XXIX 1 1 and all the Lists
give JfT ^Vb W » = XXIX 1 1 as the catchword. (4) He gives

the fifth seder runn >jit^i mm ;di6 rxzycb Ps. XXXVI 1,

whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXXV 28 and all the Lists give -pltf HATfl Wtfa
= XXXV 28 as the catchword. (5) He gives the sixth Seder
btilW >r6a ^ ^2 inm f^aWO ntlCh Ps. XLII i, whereas all
the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against

CHAP. IV.] Sedarim. 57

XLI 14 and all the Lists give bXW >ffrK " *]1in = XLI 14
as the catchword. (6) He gives the seventh Seder Ififfift
\*>y &6l 1p*3 D7K nnm ,*|D*6 Ps. L i, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against XLIX 19 and
all the Lists give l»n3 W21 >3 = XLIX 19 as the catch-
word. (7) He gives the eighth Seder ,nnWl Ss mttB^
&2W ^V n^l mm Ps. LVIII i, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against LVII 12
and all the Lists give D'BtP bV PlttH = LVII 12 as the
catchword. (B) He gives the tenth 5ofcr irm ,*]D>6 "11B?a
"Til ni^Qn 1^3 Ps. LXXIII 1, which I have inadvertandly
followed, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against LXXII 20 and all the Lists give
TTT nT?Dn *I^O = LXXII 20 as the catchword. (9) He gives
the twelfth Seder D1X n»K DIKM » inm ,mp ^n1? mttO^
Ps. LXXXV 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against LXXXIV 13 and all the Lists
give ntPK m&Ott " = LXXXIV 13 as the catchword.
( 10) He gives the thirteenth Seder DVI^Kfl ttf\X WO^ rften
Ps. XC 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of
the text against XC 17 and all the Lists give DV1 Wl =
XC 17 as the catchword. Though I have given the Seder
on XC 17 in accordance with the MSS. I have inadvertandly
also left it standing against XC 1. (1 1) He gives the fifteenth
Seder bWW* V6* " *]TU "inm ,D1B *5 " TOil Ps. CVII i,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against CV 45 and all the Lists give "HW 113PD = CV 45 as
the catchword. 1 12) He gives the sixteenth Seder 'HttfX iTI^n
naSPl JVtPJO nnm ,WX Ps. CXII i, which I inadvertandly
followed, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of
the text against CXI 10 and all the Lists give-nODn fWNI
- CXI 10 as the catchword. And (13) he gives the
seventeenth Seder ^l^im ^WV TT Ps. CXIX 73, whereas
all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against

58 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

CXIX 72 and all the Lists give nTin *b DIE = CXIX 72
as the catchword.

Proverbs. — All the MSS., both in the margin of the text
and in the separate Lists, assign eight Sedarim to Pro-
verbs. Arundel Oriental 16 which in the other books gives
the Sedarim, both in the text and in a separate List
at the end of each book, has no separate List in Pro-
verbs, though it carefully marks each Seder in the
margin of the text. There is, however, one variation in
this MS. which is to be noted. The seventh Seder-
is marked in the margin of the text against D,X,t93 XXV 1 4
instead of ag'ainst D32C3 XXV 13, as it is in all the other
MSS., both in the text and in the separate Lists. Of the
two Yemen Codices, viz. Oriental 2374 and Oriental 2375.
the former does not mark the Sedarim, whilst the latter
agrees with the received recension.

Dr. Baer's List has the following two departures from
the Massorah. Thus Dr. Baer gives the third Seder
*fi njVDil flBjn DX IX 12, which I have inadvertandly fol-
lowed, whereas all the MSS., with the exception of Arundel
Or. 16, mark it in the margin of the text against IX 11
and all the Lists give y& "DT >3 >3 = IX 1 1 as the catch-
word. And (2) he gives the sixth Seder bl bttfl *?X XXII 22,
which I inadvertandly followed, whereas all the MSS. mark
it in the margin of the text against XXII 21 and all the
Lists give BE?p "pmn^XXH 21 as the catchword.

Job. - This book too has eight Sedarim which are duly
marked, both in the margin of the text and in the sepa-
rate Lists. Arundel Oriental 16, which carefully marks each
Seder in the text, has no separate List at the end of this
book. It moreover exhibits the following variation: The sixth
Seder, which is marked in the margin of all the other MSS.
against XXIX 14 and is so given in all the separate Lists,
is in this MS. marked against y\vb Yl"."[ WW XXIX 15.

CHAP. IV.] Sedarim. 59

As to the two Yemen MSS., Oriental 2375 coincides
exactly with the received List, whilst Oriental 2374, in
which a few leaves are missing, both at the beginning- and
at the end of Job, marks in the margin of the text the fol-
lowing eight Sedarim which are entirely at variance with
our recension: (1) Job VIII 7. (2) XII 12. (3) XV 19.
14) XIX 25. (5) XXIII 1. (6) XXXIX 1. (7) XXXII 8 and
(8) XXXVI 16. Against Job I 1 the t has dropped out
from the margin in my edition.

Dr. Baer's List has the following four departures
from the Massorah: (1) Dr. Baer gives the second Seder

mnpn nxr n:n nnm ,m\x fsn VI i, whereas an the MSS.

mark it in the margin of the text against V 27 and all the
Lists give fTCIpn HX? ilif! 7= Y 27 as the catchword. (2) He
gives the third Seder l^D: nSB DDlpm imi ,31*8 pPl XII 1,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XI 19 and all the Lists give TITO (>X1 HWll =
XI 19 as the catchword. (3) He gives the fifth Seder
»p3 >8 B^»> Ifim ,3VX p>»1 XXIII 1 1 (a mistake for XXIII 1),
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXII 30 and all the Lists give >pa \X £*?£> =
XXII 30 as the catchword. And (4) he gives the seventh
Seder ^ WW HfW f\X DX mm ,Xin^8 fin XXXIV 1,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXXIII 33 and all the Lists give tfftttf nnx px DX =
XXXIII 33 as the catchword.

The Five Migilloth. — The Massorah tells us that Can-
ticles, Ruth and Lamentations have no Sedarim. It is, there-
fore, only two out of the Five Migilloth, viz. Ecclesiastes
and Esther which have them. The former has four Sedarim
and the latter five. This is fully confirmed, both by the
Massorah Parva against each Seder and by the separate Lists. '

1 Oriental 4227 has, however, at the end of the List of the Sedarim
(fol. 1 98*) the following: tfTWl TP1 m DWtfl ITW D"SinD b& DfHDTl b"2

•omc rvobv niri

60 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

For the Lists I have collated Add. 15251 and Oriental 422 7,
as well as the editio princeps. The MSS. which have the
Sedarim marked in the margin of the text and which I
have collated are Oriental 2201, Oriental 2375 and Arundel
Oriental 16. It is, however, to be remarked that not one
of these three MSS- has the Sedarim on Esther, though they
all carefully give them on Ecclesiastes. For Esther, there-
fore, I have been restricted to the three separate Lists. Only
one of the Yemen MSS., viz. Or. 2375, marks the Sedarim
which entirely coincide with the received recension.

In Ecclesiastes Dr. Baer's List deviates from the
Massorah in one instance. Thus Dr. Baer gives the second
Seder D1KH bl D^l Ifm ,^3 >3 WT III 14, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against III 13
and all the Lists give D1XH b2 DJH = III 13 as the
catchword.

In Esther Dr. Baer's List coincides with the
Massoretic Lists.

Daniel. — According to the Massorah, Daniel has seven
Sedarim. In Oriental 2201 and Oriental 2375, however, the
seventh Seder, viz. X 2 1 is omitted. But it is duly marked
in the margin of the text in Arundel Oriental 16 and is
given in all the three Lists, viz. Add. 15251, Oriental 4227
and in the editio princeps. Of the two Yemen MSS.
Oriental 2375 coincides with the received recension, whilst
Oriental 2374 is defective. But the fragment exhibits two
variations. Thus the second Seder is III 1, instead of II 35;
and the third Seder is V 1, instead of III 30.

In Dr. Baer's List there are three departures from the
Massorah. Thus ( 1) Dr. Baer gives the second Seder
1BKJ mtPBI NB^n rm H 36, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text against II 35 and all the Lists
give mriD Ipl pixn = II 35 as the catchword. (2) He gives
the fourth Seder bvn ^H^l p*0 V 13, whereas all the

CHAP. IV.] Sedaiim. 61

MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against V 12 and
all the Lists give mi H top to — "V 12 as the catchword.
And (3) he gives the seventh Seder Em "6 nnx 3T\W2 >iN1
XI 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the
text against X 21 and all the Lists give "[^ T3K totf =
X 21 as the catchword. With regard to the fifth Seder
there is a variation. The three Lists give W H3 ^JTJTl =
VI 1 1 as the catchword, whilst the three MSS., viz. Oriental
2201; Oriental 2375 and Arundel Or. 16, mark it in the
margin of the text against PI^H HH ^8C3T) = VI 29. If
this does not exhibit a different recension it is due to
an oversight of the compilers of the List, who mistook the
catchword b&fV\, adding to it VT >D instead of nbxn mi*

Ezra-Xeliemiah. — In the MSS. and in the early editions
of the Bible, Ezra and Nehemiah are not divided and the
Massorah treats them as one book under the single name of
Ezra. According to the Massorah Ezra, i. e. Ezra-Nehemiah
has ten Sedarim. This is confirmed by the following MSS.
which I have collated for this purpose: Add. 15251,
Arundel Oriental 16, Oriental 4227 and the editio princeps
which give separate Lists, as well as Oriental 2201,
Oriental 2375 and Arundel Oriental 16, which mark the
Sedarim in the margin of the text. Of the two Yemen MSS.
Oriental 2374 does not mark the Sedarim in Ezra, whilst
Oriental 2375 coincides with our recension, with the
exception of the tenth Seder, which this MS. and Arund.
Or. 16 mark in the margin of the text against Neh. XII 26
instead of XII 27.

Dr. Baer's List exhibits the following five departures
from the Massorah: (1) Dr. Baer gives the second Seder
■Tn.T n¥ WWn Ezra IV 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text against III 13 and all the Lists
give D^TDft DPH fXT = III 13 as the catchword. (2) He gives
the third Seder riDDH DX pfrUfl *J3 WW*\ VI 19, whereas all

62 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against VI 18
and all the Lists give 8^H3 WpiTl = VI 18 as the catchword.
(3) He gives the fifth Seder T\W [B'J WW2 *m Neh. II 1,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against Neh. I 1 1 and all the Lists give X3 'Hfl >31K K3K =
I 1 1 as the catchword. (4) He gives the sixth Seder ItPfcO W1
ft^DSD Pttttf IV I, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against III 38 and all the Lists give MX PlIMI
HOinn = HI 38 as the catchword. And (5) he gives the
seventh Seder W3*W ^ W&1P 1VXD W1 VI 1.6, whereas all
the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against VI 15 and
all the Lists give Httinn D^ENT) = VI 15 as the catchword.

Chronicles. — The division of Chronicles into two books
like the division of Samuel, Kings and Ezra and Nehe-
miah, is of modern origin, so far as the Hebrew Bible is
concerned. It does not occur in the MSS. nor in the early
editions, and the Massorah treats Chronicles as a single book.
Hence, in the enumeration of the Sedarim, the numbers run
on without any break. According to the Massorah the book
of Chronicles has twenty-five Sedarim. This is fully con-
firmed by the four Massoretic Lists which I have collated
and which are as follows: ( 1 ) in Add. 1 5 2 5 1 ; (2) Orient. 4227;
(3) Arundel Oriental 16 and (4) in the editio princeps of the
Rabbinic Bible by Jacob b. Chayim. I have also collated
the following MSS. where the Sedarim are marked in the
margin of the text: Oriental 2201: Oriental 2374; Oriental
2375; and Arundel Oriental 16; thus the latter MS, marks
the Sedarim in the text, besides giving a separate List.

Oriental 2374 and Oriental 2375 are the Yemen MSS.
containing the Hagiographa, and have, therefore, preserved
the Yemen recension. The former marks only three of the
twenty -five Sedarim, viz. the ninteenth, the twentieth and
the twenty -fourth, and these fully coincide with our recension.
The latter marks twenty-three out of the twenty-five

CHAP. IV.J Sedarim. 63

Sedarim. The last pages containing the twenty-fifth Seder are
missing; whilst the twentieth Seder, viz. 2 Chron. XXII 11,
which is duly marked in the former MS., is here not marked at
all, which is evidently due to an oversight on the part of the
Scribe. All the other Sedarim coincide with our recension.
The List manipulated by Dr. Baer contains the follow-
ing eighteen departures from the Massorah: (1) He gives
the second Seder y^V iOpn imi ,nnw *3K 3ltal 1 Chron.
IV 1 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the
text against IV 10 and all the Lists give y^V Nip*! =*=
IV 10 as the catchword. (2) He gives the third Seder

v:m pnxi nnm pnn >:n nton vi 35, whereas ail the mss.

mark it in the margin of the text against VI 34 and all

the Lists give V221 pHKl = VI 34 as the catchword.

3 ) He gives the fourth Seder V.T1 nmi /llprrnn ^KW* ^m

D^ltf '33 IX 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin

of the text against VIII 40 and all the Lists give >H VtV)

D^IK = VIII 40 as the catchword. (4) As regards the fifth

Seder, for which Dr. Baer gives ^JOt^ ^31 TVT *|^*1 XI 4,

though it is supported by the Lists in Add. 15251 and in the

editio princeps, it is manifestly a mistake, as is evident from

Arundel Oriental 16 and Oriental 2375, both of which mark

it in the margin of the text against XI q, as well as from

the Lists in Oriental 4227 and Arundel Or. 16, which

give bT\T\ "pSl VTi *|^ - XI 9 as the catchword. The

mistake is due to the fact that the catchword originally

was simply TM "]^1 to which the Scribe added bx~W> ^31

instead of bim flS'l. {5) Dr. Baer gives the sixth Seder fWl

D^nnpn D:i ir\T\, VM XIII i, whereas all the MSS- mark

it in the margin of the text against XII 41 and all the

Lists give O^TlpH Din = XII 41 as the catchword. (6) He

gives the seventh Seder »pfrK » "[113 inm ,^D^ UV 2W

^NW XVI 37; whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin

of the text against XVI 36 and all the Lists give

64 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

SXW TI^N » -p-Q = XVI 36 as the catchword. (7) He
gives the eighth Seder fTp?p|fm p'H IfQT, 3KV EWI XIX 14,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XIX 13 and all the Lists give nptflfDl pJH =
XIX 13 as the catchword. (8) He gives the ninth Seder

nmn'? i:n nny nnm .;p? ttt xxiii r, whereas ail the

MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XXII 19
and all the Lists give Qmb "Ofl HDP = XXII 19 as the
catchword. (9) He gives the tenth Seder D^D "T^U m iTPBtP^n
XXVI 6; whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against XXVI 5 and all the Lists give
*tW.H ^KW = XXVI 5 as the catchword. (10) He gives
the eleventh Seder » ^ nnv ilKI nfim ,n»^E^ Til [fin
XXVIII 1 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against XXVIII 10 and all the Lists give
" >3 nr\V PIKI = XXVIII 10 as the catchword. (11) He
gives the twelfth Seder flTD ^X mm DTin ^» fJO^tf n^tfn
2 Chron. II 2, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against II 3 and all the Lists give
fP2 11113 ^N H3H = II 3 as the catchword. (12) He gives
the thirteenth Seder n^HDH fay *6l IDll ,n»^E? "ION ?:;
VI 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of
the text against V 14 and all the Lists give fay tft>1
D^jiIDH = V 14 as the catchword. (13) He gives the
fifteenth Seder DW2B DH1 "lfim .TIW1K fTBte^ »PP1 IX 25,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against IX 24 and all the Lists give tP'X DWDB DH1 = IX 24
as the catchword. (14) He gives the sixteenth Seder

lWDmi nrm ,ornni ^an prnnn xn 13, whereas ail the

MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XII 12
and all the Lists give 112.2 2V TOnnm = XII 12 as the
catchword. (15) He gives the nineteenth Seder "j^Bn
rVDteopiWn inm, BStPliT XX 31, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against XX 30 and all

CHAI>. IV.] Sedarim. 65

the Lists give BDEn.T rTD^B BptPm = XX 30 as the
catchword. (16) He gives the twenty-first Seder tPtP [2

rr6\x nx rm Kin inn, raw rvwv xxvi 3, whereas ail the

MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XXVI 2
and all the Lists give m^X DN PM X1H = XXVI 2 as the
catchword. (17) He gives the twenty-second Seder D't^fl lOlp'l

lton ^x nnr ^a inn ,nm xxix 12, whereas ail the MSS.

mark it in the margin of the text against XXIX 1 1 and all the
Lists give I^Wfl Ss HfiJ? »J3 = XXIX n as the catchword.
(18) He gives the twenty-third Seder 1H21 }]^nb I.TpNT 1QW)
innrr V^K ID^l XXXI i i7 whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the margin of the text against XXXI 10 and all the Lists
give im?r v\s TB*n = XXXI 10 as the catchword.

From the above analysis it will be seen that the Hebrew
Bible contains 452 Sedarim, as follows: The Pentateuch has
167, the Former Prophets 97, the Latter Prophets 107 and the
Hagiographa8i;i. e. 167 -f-97 -f- 107 -f- 81 = 452. Deducting- the
167 Sedarim in the Pentateuch and the 35 in Kings, the Lists
of which have not as yet been published by Dr. Baer, we are
left to deal with 250 Sedarim given by him in the Appendices
to the different parts of the Prophets and Hagiographa. Of
these no fewer than 126, i. e. half of the total number g-iven
by Dr. Baer, are against the Massorah as marked in the
margin of the text in the MSS. and in the Lists. As this ex-
hibits a difference between Dr. Baer's text and my edition,
which extends to almost every page of the Bible, I have
been obliged to give this minute analysis, not to expose
Dr. Baer's departure from the Massorab, but to justify my
<-dition.

Chap. V.

The Annual Perieopes.

III. The Annual Perieopes constitute the third division
of the text of the Pentateuch. These divisions which consist
of fifty-four hebdomadal lessons, are called Parashiyoth
(fVWlQ, singular nEHD) and are as follows:

Genesis has 1 2

Exodus „ 1 1

Leviticus „ 10

Numbers ,, 10

Deuteronomy » ll-

Each of these fifty-four Perieopes has a separate
name which it derives from the initial word or words.
With the exception of one Parasha, viz. Vayechi | >m = Gen.
XL VII 28 etc.] all these Perieopes coincide with an Open
or Closed Section. ' Hence in the Ritual Scrolls of the
Pentateuch, where no letters of any kind, apart from those
constituting the consonants of the text, are allowed, these
hebdomadal lessons are sufficiently indicated by the pre-
scribed sectional breaks.

In most MvSS. of the Pentateuch in book form, however,
'D, "ID or 'EHD is put in the margin against the commence-

1 In some MSS. there is also no sectional division between the end of
Pericope mblTI, i. e. Gen. XXVIII 9 and the beginning of K2F1 = Gen.
XXVIII 10 as is stated in the Massorah Parva of the Model Codex No. I
in the Imperial and Royal Court Library at Vienna I^K nVEnB fW p3 pK

♦«rw "nain mri rrrorar tie pa na -jnrt «r»ri

CHAP. V.] The Annual Pericopes. <>7

ment of the respective Pericopes, whilst in the prescribed
vacant space of the Open or Closed Section, the mnemonic
sign, indicating- the number of verses contained in the
Parasha, is given in smaller letters. This is the case in
most of the Spanish Codices. In the more ancient MSS.
from South Arabia Parasha (ntHEJ) is sometimes expressed
in the vacant sectional space in large illuminated letters,
followed by the mnemonic sign indicating the number of
verses. The insertion of Parasha in the text, but without
the mnemonie sign, was adopted in the editio princeps of
the Pentateuch, Bologna, 1482.

In many MSS. especially of the German Schools, the
Pericopes are indicated by three Pes (Q D B) in the vacant
space in the text with or without the mnemonic sign. In
some MSS. the three Pes are followed by the first word or
words of the Pericope being in larger letters. ' The editors
of the first, second and third editions of the entire Hebrew
Bible (Soncino, 1485; Naples, 1491 — 93; Brescia, 1494),
have followed this practice. I have reverted to the more
ancient practice which is exhibited in the best MSS. and
in which 'EHB is simply put in the margin against the
commencement of the Pericope.

1 Comp. Arundel Oriental 2 dated A. D. 1216; Add. 9401 — 2 dated
A. D. 1286. This is also the case in the beauttful and most important MS.
No. 13 in the Imperial and Royal Court Library at Vienna.

Chap. VI.
The Division into Verses.

IV. The fourth division of the text is into verses. The
Scrolls of the Law, which undoubtedly exhibit the most
ancient form of the Hebrew text, have as a rule no
versicular division. ' These are found in all MSS. in book
form with the vowel-points and the accents. The most
cursory comparison of the Hebrew with the ancient versions
discloses the fact that verses and whole groups of verses
are found in the Septuagint which do not exist in the
present Hebrew Bible, and that the Septuagint translation
especially was made from a recension which in many
respects differed materially from the present Massoretic
recension.

When, therefore, the custodians of the Scriptures
fixed the present text according to the MSS. which
in their time were held as Standard Codices, they found
it necessary not only to exclude these verses, but
to guard ag'ainst their inclusion on the part of Scribes.
To secure this end the Massorites both carefully marked
the last word of each verse by placing a stroke under
it (t) called Silhik (pl^D) and counted every such verse
in each canonical book, in accordance with the traditions

1 There are, however, some MS. Scrolls in which both the verse-
division and the pause in the middle of the verse, are indicated by marks of
a special kind evidently made to aid the prelector in the public reading of the
hebdomadal lessons. Comp. Catalogue of the Hebiew MSS. in the University
Library Cambridge by Schiller-Szinessey, p. 2 &c, Cambridge 1876.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. G9

which were preserved in the respective Schools. Henco
the Talmud tells us that "the ancients were called
Scribes |i. e. Sophcrim or Counters] because they counted
all the letters in Holy Writ. Thus they said that the Vav in
pn3 [Levit. XI 42] is the middle letter in the Pentateuch,
that EH1 tPVI [Levit. X 16] is the middle word, that H^nm
[Levit. XIII 33] is the middle verse; that the V in 11?\2
[Ps. LXXX 14] is the middle letter in the Psalter, and
that Ps. LXXVII 38 is the middle verse". '

In the division of the verses, however, as is the case
with other features of the Hebrew text, the different Schools
had different traditions. And though the verse-division, as
finally fixed by the Massorites, is that which has been
preserved and is followed in the MSS., yet traces of the
Palestinian and other variations are occasionally given in
different Codices and are indicated in the Massorah itself.
Thus the word n^fim = Levit. XIII ^^ which the Talmud
in the passage just quoted, gives as the middle verse
of the Pentateuch, is not the one given in the Massoretic
MSS. of the Bible, nor in the editions. The Massorah
gives nx VbV DtP'l = Levit. VIII 8 as the middle verse,
whilst Sophcrim and the Palestinian Midrash give EIW1
= Levit. VIII 23 as the middle verse. The same difference
is exhibited with regard to the total number of verses in
the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Hagiographa, as
will be seen from the following Table.

vtvb miTDw nivnRn ba o*wia rrw dttob d/oiwh imps "p^sb '
r6;nm ,m:rn bw rxn am am ,min nsc bm nrim bw pan pnn vki onaiK
;t ibs'' aim Kim ,ahnr\ bw D^xn iyi pr ny*a Tin nrac^r" , epics bv

C*p*C£l ''istn Kiddushin 30a.

Introduction.

[CHAP. VI.

Sopherim and
Yalkut

Babylon. Talmud J The Massorah

I. Pentateuch

middle verse
II. The Prophets
III. TheHagiographa
Psalms
Chronicles

15842 verses '
Levit. VIII 23
2294 verses
5063 „

5888 verses2
Levit XIII 3

5896 verses
5880 r

5845 verses
Levit. VIII 8
9294 verses
8064 „

[2527] *
[1765] -

total 23 1 99 verses

total 23203 verses3

We moreover learn from the Talmud that the
Palestinians had much shorter verses than the Babylonians,
and that the former divided the single verse in Exod. XIX 9
into three distinct verses.4 The oldest Massorah extant
informs us that whilst according to the Maarbai Deut.
XVII 10 is the middle verse of Deuteronomy, according
to the Madinchai the middle verse is Deut. XVII 12.5 The
traces of these variations I have carefully indicated in the
notes when I have found them in the MSS. 6 since they
not only exhibit a more ancient School, but explain some
discrepancies in the numbers.

trsbx 'n twaa bv D'piaai rS'anro a-a^x vis train bv a'p'ca pawn '
:D*yiatrn 'aa-ana^ ,axp t\bx rn ban ,roi a^abx (n rawa hw a'picai ,Tawi

Comp. Yalkut on the Pentateuch No. 855. A very able article on tbis
subject by Graetz is to be found in the Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und
Wissenschaft des Judenthums, vol. XXXIV, p. 97—100, Krotoshin 1885.

nan rrm® cr^nn vbv nr? ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ mm 'a "pics nam a-a^x 'n Tn -

n31»tt? D'&'H nai I^X: Kiddushin 30^; Nedarim 38,?.

3 This addition does not include the Psalms and Chronicles which
have been repeated here separately in order to exhibit the difference between
the computation of the Talmud and the Massorah in these two books.

toot <piaa xnbn vrp ^rb -pea xany&a -m xix -axnx "1 xrx -a «

JpXTl apa ybtt xa 'a2X M3n 'J! Comp. Kiddushin 30*7; Nedarim 38a.

5 Comp. Oriental 4445, fol. 172 b.

(> Comp. Gen. XXXV 22; Deut. XVI 3; XVII 10, 12; XXXII 35, 39;
Judg. VIII 29, 30; Isa. XX 2; Jerem. XXXIV 2; XXXVIII 28; Ps. XXII
5, 6; XXXIV 6; LII I, 2; LIII 1, 2; XC I; CXXIX 5, 6.

CHAP. VI. j The Division into Verses. 71

The Pentateuch. Naturally the greatest care was
taken in guarding the verse- division of the Pentateuch.
Hence, not only is the sum-total of the verses in each book
given, but the verses of each Pericope are counted and
the number given at the end of each hebdomadal Lesson
<nt2HS) of the Annual Cycle with or without a mnemonic
sign. It is, therefore, only natural to suppose that the Pales-
tinians also must have exercised equal care and counted
the verses in each Seder CHD) of their Triennial Cycle, and
that in the neglect of the Sedarim the number of the
Palestinian verses has perished.

As has already been remarked, the number of verses
given at the and of each Parasha (HEHB) is followed by a
mnemonic sign. This generally consists of a proper name,
which is numerically of the same value. Here again we
must notice that the different Schools had different Lists
of these mnemonic signs from which each Scribe selected
one or more to append to each Pericope. Hence it is that
different MSS. vary in these signs, and that some Codices and
the editio princeps of the Massoretic Bible by Jacob b. Chayim,
have at times several of these mnemonic sig-ns at the end of
one and the same Parasha. These we shall now explain
according to the order of the Parashas, as well as correct
the mistakes which have crept into the printed editions and
account for the discrepancies in the number of the verses.

The MSS. which I have collated for this branch of
the text are as follows: (i) Orient. 4445 which is the oldest
known at present. (2) Orient. 2201 dated A. D. 1246. (3) The
splendid MS. marked No. 1 in the University Library at
Madrid dated 1280. (4) Add. 9401 — 9402 dated 1286. (5) Orient.
!379« (0) Orient. 2348. (7) Orient. 2349. (8) Orient. 2350.
(9) Orient. 2364. (10) Orient. 2365. (n) Orient. 2626. (12) Add.
1525 1 and (13) the editio princeps of Jacob b. Chayim's
Rabbinic Bible, Venice 1524 — 25.

72 Introduction. [CHAP. VI

Genesis. — (i) For {"WK13 (Gen. 1 1 —VI 8) which has 1 46
verses, all the MS8. with the exception of Add. 9401, give
iT¥ON =^146 as the mnemonic sign. The latter, however,
has not only this name, but adds a second, viz. ljTptfT
which also exhibits the same numerical value. Hence
the two names in the editio princeps. The connection
between this MS. and the editio princeps, as far as the
mnemonic sig'ns are concerned, is also seen in Nos. 7, 10,
l8, 3o, 31, 39, 45 &c.

(2) For ri3 (Gen. VI 9 — XI 32) which has 153 verses,
all the MSS. have bvbtl = 153. The editio princeps has
not only this name, but adds to it the sentence ®pb i"!2D> '38
which is of the same numerical value, but which I could not
find in the MSS.

(3) For *p *p (XII 1 7- XVII 27) which has 126
verses, all the MSS. have *3*T330 = 126. The editio princeps
has 1^03 = 126 which I could not find in the MSS. and
31330 which is a mistake for >31330-

(4) In KT1 (XVIII 1— XXII 24) we come to the first
apparent discrepancy. The Massoretico-Grammatical Trea-
tise which precedes the Yemen MSS. of the Pentateuch
state, both in words and in numerals, that this Parasha
has 146 verses and that the mnemonic sign is "liTpTIT =
146. ' Yet the same five MSS. in the text itself at the end
of the Pericope state that it has 147 verses and give
Xl^Q^ "-= 147 as the mnemonic sign. The latter computation
is also to be found in Orient. 2201, Orient. 2626 and Add.
1 525 1 which give N*6lp = 147 as the mnemonic sign2 as
well as in Add. 9401, in MS. No. 1 in Madrid University
Library which gives 1PP3313 = 147 as the mnemonic sign

») Comp. rrpat dw paan im i&p rffwiifl nw riK» DpiD^sn p£*

()r- I379) fol. 22 a; Or. 2348, fol. 26 a; Or. 2349, fol. 16a; Or. 2350, fol. 24a,
and Or. 2364, fol. 12a.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 73

and the editio princeps which gives pj2X - 147 as the
mnemonic sign. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the
two computations exhibit two different Massoretic Schools.

(5) For mt> »H (Gen. XXIII 1 -XXV 18) which has

105 verses, all the MSS. as well as the editio princeps
give PTIiT =■ 105 as the mnemonic sign. It is, however, to
be noticed that Add. 9401 has reversed both the numbers
and signs in the preceding Pericope and in this, giving for
the former n^ Hp and for the latter p3EX JQp. This shows
that the numbers and the mnemonic signs for the Pericopes
were preserved in separate Lists and that the Scribes
occasionally assigned them to the wrong place.

(6) For m^in (Gen. XXV 19 -XXVIII 9) which has

106 verses, all the MSS. give bvbbxV = 106 as the mne-
monic sign. In the editio princeps both the number of verses
and the sign are omitted altogether.

(7) For Kn (Gen. XXVIII 10 -XXXII 3) which has
148 verses, all the MSS. give 'p^fl = 148 as the mnemonic
sign. Add. 9041, however, has the additional sign D^HB
which is of the same numerical value. Hence the two signs,
in the editio princeps.

In (8) rftttPl (Gen. XXXII 4— XXXVI 43) we have
another apparent discrepancy. All the MSS., both in the se-
parate Lists and at the end of this Pericope, distinctly declare
that it has 154 verses. This is confirmed by the different
mnemonic signs. Thus the five Yemen MSS. give HWbp =
154 as the mnemonic sign in the separate Treatise and in
the text itself at the end of the Parasha they give
"ONUS* p<D '1D*S Ijp = 154. The former sign is also given
in Or. 2201 and in the editio princeps.1 The Madrid Codex,
which gives pvb = 154 as the mnemonic sign, gives the

1 In Or. 2626 which has K85"?p D"j5 there is evidently a clercial error
due to the misspelling of the mnemonic sign.

74 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

same number. Yet there are only 153 verses in the Parasha.
viz. 30 -|- 20 -\- 31 -\- 29 -f- 43 = 153. The discrepancy is due
to the fact that XXXV 22 is two verses according to the
\srD"[£. Hence the number given at the end of the Parasha
is according- to the Eastern recension, whereas the number
of the verses in the text is according to the Western
recension. Hence also the double accents in this verse,
one representing the Oriental and the other the Occidental
verse-division.

(9) For 3EH (Gen. XXXVII 1— XL 23) which has 112
verses, all the MSS. give >H3 = 112 as the mnemonic sign,
whereas the editio princeps has p3\ Oriental 4445 which
begins with Gen. XXXIX 20 also gives the number of
verses after each Parasha, but not the mnemonic sign. As
this is the oldest Hebrew MS. yet known, I shall hence-
forth include its numbers.

(10) For YpQ (Gen. XLI i-XLIV 17) which has
146 verses, all the MSS., with the exception of Add. 9401,
give liTpflT = 146 as the mnemonic sign. The latter gives
iTifttX — 1 46 as the sign. The editio princeps has no fewer than
three separate signs, viz. 12V ^ iT.T ,iT3fON /liTptfT the first is
the one given in the majority of the MSS., the second is given
in Add. 9401 and the third I could not find in any MS.

(11) For wn (Gen. XLIV 18— XLVII 27) which has
106 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
b\nbb?V = 106 as the mnemonic sign. It will be seen that
this sign is also given for the sixth Parasha which has the
same number of verses.

(12) For m (Gen.XLVIl28— L26) whichhas85 verses,
all the MSS., with the exception of one, give il^y = 85 as
the mnemonic sign. Or. 2626, however, gives JTD'E which
is numerically of the same value. It is to be remarked that
Or, 4445 gives ID = 84 as the number of verses in this
Parasha probably exhibiting a different recension.

CHAP. VI. I The Division into Verses. 73

All the MSS. agree that Genesis has 1534 verses and
that the middle verse is Gen. XXVII 40.

Exodus. — (13) For mOt27 (Exod. I i— VI i) which has
124 verses, all the MSS. give HPtt = 124 as the mnemomic
sign. The editio princeps, which also gives this sign, has
an additional one, viz. npn = 124 which I could not find in
the MSS.

(14) For JO JO (Exod. VI 2— IX35) which has 121 verses,
all the MSS. give b^W = 121 as the mnemonic sign. In
the editio princeps, where the same sign is given, Jacob
b. Chayim has also ^V2^ =121 which in this spelling does
not occur in the Bible. The hapax legomenon in the Hebrew
Scriptures is ^'$21 (Exod. IX 31) which is numerically 105.
I could not, however, find this sign in any MS.

(15) For N3 (Exod. X 1 - XIII 16) which has 106 verses,
all the MSS., with one exception, give Ss^ST = 106 as
the mnemonic sign. This sign we have already had twice,
viz. in Pericopes fll^in and EWh Add. 9401 gives the
number of verses in this Parasha as Hp = 105 and has
the mnemonic sign *^ta = 1 10, which is evidently a
mistake. The editio princeps which also gives the number
of verses as Hp = 105 corrects the mnemonic sign into
n3ft' = 105. If the number is right, we have here another
instance of the variations in the verse-divisions which ob-
tained in the different Schools. It is greatly to be regretted
that Oriental 4445 which, as we have seen, is the oldest
MS. known at present, does not give the number of
verses at the end of this Parasha.

(16) For r6tt3 (Exod. XIII 1 7 -XVII 16) which has
116 verses, all the MSS. give riiOD = 116 as the mnemonic
sign. In the editio princeps, where this sign is also given,
Jacob b. Chayim has added mittX T = 116 as another sign.
This sign, however, I have not been able to find in any
MS. The mnemonic sign HN^D in Oriental 2365 is a clerical

76 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

blunder, since this name is numerically 122 and contradicts
the statement by which it is preceded, viz. HXIjD 'ID^D Vp
This error is probably due to the fact that the Scribe
mistook it for the sign which belongs to Parasha SliTI
No. 22 , where it is rightly given in all the MSS.

(17) In MN (Exod. XVIII 1 — XX 26) we have another
discrepancy. All the MSS. distinctly say that it has 2V =
72 verses and give ^X^K = 72 as the mnemonic sign. The
editio princeps, though giving another sign 21 jV = 72
which I could not find in the MSS., gives the same number.
Yet the number of verses in our editions is 75 (i. e.
27 -f- 25 4- 25 — 75). Indeed the ordinary editions of the
Hebrew Bible have 26 verses in chap. XX, since verse 13
is divided into four verses. The apparent discrepancy is
due to the different ways of dividing chap. XX into verses
which obtained in olden days, one designed for public
reading and the other in accordance with the division of
the sentences. For public reading, when theChaldee version
was recited by the official interpreter after every verse,
the Decalogue was divided into ten verses, so as to assign
a separate verse to each commandment. Hence with the
one introductory verse and the nine verses after the
Decalogue, this chapter according to the Massorah and the
MSS. has only twenty verses (i. e. 1 -f 10 -f 9 = 2°)«
According to the sense, however, the Decalogue is
divided into 12 verses which with the one preliminary
verse and the nine following verses, give to chap. XX
twenty-two verses (viz. 1 -j- 12 -f 9 = 22), and Parasha
lin> has 74 verses. The double accents exhibit the two
different verse-divisions. The computation here is in accor-
dance with the former practice, whereas the sum-total at
the end of Exodus is in accordance with the latter practice.

(18) For D'BBPO (Exod. XXI 1— XXIV 18) which
has 118 verses, all the MSS., with the exception of one,

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 77

give bwW = 1 1 8 as the mnemonic sign. It is only Add.
9401 which gives ^j!"1 = 118 as the sign. Hence the two
signs blNV and *33n in the editio princeps.

(19) For nOITTI (Exod. XXV 1— XXVII 19) which
has 96 verses, all the MSS., with the exception of Add.
1525 1, give "6d = 96 as the mnemonic sign.1 The spelling
Xl^D with X in Oriental 2201 is a clerical error. The editio
princeps which also gives this sign has the additional sign
ypi = ^5 which is manifestly taken from this Paraska
(Exod. XXVII 3), but which I could not find in the MSS.

(20) For jTOtti (Exod. XXVII 20— XXX 10) which
has 1 01 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
the mnemonic sign ^WE = 101.

(21) For Kffn V (Exod. XXX 11— XXXIV 35) which
has 139 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
7X33)1 = 139 as the mnemonic sign.

(22) For S-lpn (Exod. XXXV 1— XXXVIII 20) which
has 122 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
riXljD =122 as the mnemonic sign. This is the name
which is given by mistake for Parasha rfrttD No. 16 in
Oriental 2365.

(23) For HIpB (Exod. XXXVIII 21 -XL 38; which
has 92 verses, eight MSS. out of the ten give i"Ptt?=92
as the mnemonic sign. The absence of the number of verses
and the sign at the end of this Parasha in Add. 9401 and
in Or. 2626, is due to the ornament which occupies the
space between the two books. Hence their absence in
the editio princeps, the editor of which had manifestly
before him MSS. with ornamental letters at the be-
ginning of Leviticus which excluded the signs at the end
of Exodus.

1 Z£"~ which the Madrid Codex gives is manifestly a clerical error
since this MS. distinctly states that this Parasha has (ii "l2") 96 verses.

78 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

All the MSS. and the editio princeps state at the end of
this book that Exodus has 1209 verses and that the middle
verse is XXII 27. This computation is in accordance with the
practice of dividing the Decalogue into twelve and chap. XX
into 22 verses. In accordance with the practice which divided
the Decalogue into ten verses and chap. XX into 20 verses
the sum-total is 1207. For this two-fold division we must
refer to the remark on Parasha "HJV No. 17.

Leviticus. — (24) JOp^l (Levit. I 1— V 26) which has
1 1 1 verses; all the MSS. give ^NIJH = 1 1 1 as the mnemonic
sign. The same sign is given below in Parasha 2pV No. 46
which has also 1 1 1 verses. The sign 1¥ = 96 in the editio
princeps has manifestly been inserted here from the next
Parasha by an oversight on the part of Jacob b. Chayim.

125) For l¥ (Levit. VI 1 — VIII 36) which has 97 verses,
all the MSS., except one, give ")rp-QP = 97. Oriental 2626,
however, states that this Parasha has 1¥ = 96 verses and gives
"D^E = 96 as the mnemonic sign. But this is evidently due
to the scribe who confused the name of the Parasha OllC)
with the memonical sign. Having taken 1¥ as the number,
he was obliged to invent the mnemonical sign "ObH = 96 to
represent the same number. Jacob b. Chayim, who dropped
the mnemonic sign, erroneously retained 1¥ = 96 to express
the numerical value.

(26) For WfiW (Levit. IX 1 — XI 47) which has 91 verses,
all the MSS., with the exception of one, give iPPD*B = 91
as the mnemonic sign. Add. 9401, however, gives SHIP = 91
as the mnemonic sign which is also given by Jacob b.
Chayim. The connection between the editio princeps and
this MS. has already been pointed out in Parashas Nos. 1,
7, 10, 18, 30, 39, 45 &c.

(27) For rnm (Levit. XII 1— XIII 5) which has 67
verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give iTJ3 =67
as the mnemonic sign.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 79

(28) For jnXQ (Levit. XIV i-XV 33) which has 90
verses, all the MSS. give MV = 90 as the mnemonic sign.
MV\ is the Keri in 2 Chron. TX 29 the only place where
this name occurs, whereas the Kctliiv is "HIT = 94. It will
thus be seen that the official Keri is the only textual reading
recognised by the Massorites even in mnemonic signs.
1TP which is given in the editio princeps. though numeri-
cally correct, does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor
is it given in any M.S. as the sig*n. It is most probably due
to an erroneous transposition of the first two letters on
the part of the Scribe.

(29) For mO nnx (Levit. XVI 1— XVIII 30) which
has 80 verses, all the MSS. give "fax? = 80 as the mnemonic
sign. The editlo princeps which also gives this sign, gives
^D *3 = 80 as a first sigm, which I could not find in the MSS.

(30) For D'tHp (Levit. XIX 1 XX 27) which has 64
verses six of the MSS., viz. Orient. 1379, Or. 2348, Or. 2349,
Or. 2350, Or. 2364 and Or. 2365 give TTfa = 64 as the
mnemonic sign, three MSS., viz. Orient. 2201, Orient. 2626
and Add. 15251 give ni3 = 64 as the sign, one MSS., viz.
Add. 9401 gives the name 2HJ ^ = 64 as the sign, the
Madrid Codex gives S^Tl = 64 as the sign, and the editio
princeps gives two signs fijil === 64 and SfiJ >£ = 64. The
first I could not find in the MSS. and the second is to
be found in Add. 9041. The connection between the
mnemonic signs in the editio princeps and Add. 9401 has
already been pointed out in Parasha No. 1. Here again
we have a striking evidence that there were separate Lists
of these signs, and that each Scribe chose the one which
best commended itself to his taste.

(3 0 For 12X (Levit. XXI 1— XXIV 23) which has
124 verses, all the MSS. with the exception of Add. 9401,
give Hpa = 124 as the mnemonic sign. This MS., however,
gives 'MJ^K as the sign. Hence also the editio princeps.

80 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

(32) For VD (Levit. XXV 1— XXVI 2) which has 57
verses, all the MSS. as well as the editio pr biceps give b^T\ =
57 as the mnemonic sign. Jacob b. Chayim also gives
i"!rinxi? = 57 as a second sign, which, however, I could not
find in the MSS., nor does this plene form occur in the
Bible.

(33) For >npm (Levit. XXVI 3— XXVII 34) which
has 78 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
X-»tf=78 as the mnemonic sign. The spelling rW in the
editio princeps is a clerical error, since this is numerically
82 and is evidently due to the substitution of H for X on
the part of the Scribe.

The sum-total of the verses in Leviticus accordingly
is 859, and the middle verse is XV 7. This entirely
agrees with the statement in the Massoretic Summary
given in the MSS. at the end of this book.

Numbers. — (34) For "OT£D (Numb. I 1 — IV 20) which has
1 59 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give Wp^n
= 159 as the mnemonic sign. The shorter form iTp^n which
is given in Orient. 2201 and Orient. 2349 is due to a clerical
error, since it is numerically 153 and contradicts the right
number by which it is preceded in these very MSS.

(35) For XtP3 (Numb. IV 21— VII 89) which has 176
verses, all the MSS. give Dlttl? — 176 as the mnemonic sign.
The editio princeps which also g'ives it adds 3*D\3I?= 170
as a second sign. This sign I could not find in the MSS. and it
has evidently been selected because it occurs in this Paraska.

(36) For "jntom (Number VIII 1— XII 16) which has
136 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
^X^S"l^=i36 as the mnemonic sign. It is to be remarked
that Oriental 4445 gives the number of verses in this
Parasha as r\t?p= 135 being one verse less. This probably
exhibits a variation in the verse-divisions which obtained
in another School.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 81

(37) For -p nbV (Numb. XIII 1 — XV 41) which has
119 verses, all the MSS. and the editio pvinceps give
E^2=ii9 as the mnemonic sign. This sign also occurs in
Parasha No. 45.

(38) For nip (Numb. XVI 1- XVIII 32) which has
95 verses, all the MSS. and the editio pvinceps give
^K?}*! = 95 as the mnemonic sign. TO = 98 by which the
sign is preceded in the editio princeps is manifestly a
mistake for TO = 95

(39) For npn (Numb. XIX 1— XXII 1) which has 87
verses, all the MSS., except Add. 9401, give W = 87 as
the mnemonic sign. This MS., however, gives ^1^ = 87 as
the sign. Hence the second sign in the editio princeps. Jacob
b. Chayim has also as first sign fcOTtt^ = 87 which I could
not find in the MSS., but which is evidently chosen because
it occurs in the Parasha. The only sign which is given in the
nine MSS., occupies in the editio princeps the third position.

(40) For p^n (Numb. XXII 2 -XXV 9) which has
104 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
nljft = 104 as the mnemonic sign.

(41) For on^B (Numb. XXV 10— XXX 1) which has
168 verses, the different MSS, give three separate mnemonic
signs. Thus Add. 9401, Or. 2626, the Madrid Codex and the
editio princeps give Vl]?Q*^KJ = 168; Or. 2201 and Add. 1525 1
give pbr\b = 168 which is also given in the editio princeps as
the first of the two signs, and is evidently selected because
it occurs in this Parasha; whilst Oriental 1379, Oriental 2348,
Oriental 2349, Oriental 2350, Oriental 2364 and Oriental 2365
give D*n^D3 = 168. Here again we have evidence of the
existence of separate Lists of these mnemonic signs from
which the different Scribes chose according to their liking.

(42) For mBO (Numb. XXX 2— XXXII 42) which
has 112 verses, all the MSS. with exception of Add. 1525 1
and the Madrid Codex give byV =112 as the mnemonic sign.

82 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

These MSS., however, give >J5S = 112 as the sign. Jacob b.
Chayim not only gives both these signs, but has a third, viz.
Dp' which occupies the middle position, and which I could
not find in the MSS. The first sign 'p3 is manifestly a
misprint in the editio princeps.

(43) For WDB (Numb. XXXIII 1 -XXXVI 13) which
has 132 verses, all the MSS. give pbz = 132 as the mnemonic
sign. Jacob b. Chayim not only omits this sign, but gives
two signs, viz. n^TO = 83 and r6in = 49 which together yield
132 and which I could not find in the MSS. The first was
evidently selected because it occurs in this Parasha, and the
second has been added to it to yield the requisite number.

In casting up the number of verses in the separate
Paraskas of Numbers it will be seen that this book contains
altogether 1288 verses, and that the middle verse is XVII 20.
This entirely agrees with the number given in the Masso-
retic Summary at the end of Numbers. The only exception
is Oriental 4445 which states at the end of the book1 that
it contains 1285 verses. But as the numbers given at the end
of each Parasha in this very MS. agree, with one exception,
with those given in the other MSS. it is evident that the
Scribe committed an error in the summing up. The only
difference, as we have seen, is in Parasha 'irbVT^I No. 36
which according to Oriental 4445 has 135 verses instead of
136 given in all the other MSS.

Deuteronomy. • — (44) For 0^2*7 (Deut. I 1 — III 22) which
has 105 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
njS^Q = 105 as the mnemonic sign.

(45) For pnriSO (Deut. Ill 23— VII 11) which has 119
verses, all the MSS. with the exception of Add. 9401, give
ft^Q = 119 as the mnemonic sign. It is the same sign which
is given for Parasha No. 37 for the same number of verses.
It is Add. 9401 which gives the mnemonic sign bWW =118.

♦D*piDS ntram D-sifctsn D^nx&i ?]bx xr\w\ 'piofi pa *

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 83

Hence, this sign in the editio princeps which gives the
number of verses in this Parasha as ITp = 118. It will be
seen that according to the statement in all the MSS. this
Parasha has 119 verses, whilst according to the common
division of the verses it has 122 verses. The difference is
due to the different ways in which the Decalogue was
divided in chapter V. And as this question has already been
discussed, we must refer to Parasha *nri* No. 17.

(46) For 2pV (Deut. VII 12 — XI 25) which has 1 1 1 verses,
the different MSS. give three different mnemonic signs.
Thus, Oriental 2201, Add. 9401, Add. 15251 as well as the
editio princeps give tiby^ = in; Oriental 1379, Or. 2348,
Or. 2349, Or. 2350, Or. 2364 and Or. 2365 give SWH — m;
and Or. 2626 gives *N^5 = in which is the Kethiv in
Judg. XIII 18. The additional p^N in the editio princeps is
simply a transposition of N*p and is misleading, since there
is no such word in the Hebrew Scriptures.

(47) For HfcO (Deut. XI 26— XVI 17) which has 126
verses, Or. 2201, Or. 1379, Or. 2348, Or. 2349, Or. 2350, Or. 2364,
Or. 2365, the Madrid Codex and the editio princeps give iTX^B
= 126 as the mnemonic sign. Add. 1525 1 gives n3?5= 127 and
Or. 2626 ^Jtflft} = 127. These two MSS., therefore, exhibit a
School which counted one verse more in this Parasha. The
remark at the end of the Parasha in Add. 9401 bWV 23*p,
that this Par asha has 119 verses and that the sign is bWW
= 118 is not only contradictory in itself, but has evidently
been mixed up by the Scribe with the preceding Parasha.

(48) For D^BDttf (Deut. XVI 18— XXI 9) which has
97 verses, the MSS. give two different mnemonic signs.
Oriental 2201, Add. 9401, Add. 15251 and Or. 2626 as well
as the editio princeps give X^D = 97 as the sign, whilst
Or. 2348, Or. 2349, Or. 2350, Or. 2364 and Or. 2365 give
VP*J3$7 =97 as the sign. The sign nHDX? in Or. 1379 is a
clerical error.

84 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

(49) For Nttn 13 (Deut. XXI 10— XXV 19) which
has no verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
^by as the mnemonic sign.

(50) For K*Qn >2 (Deut. XXVI 1— XXIX 8) which
has 122 verses, all the MSS., except one, give 'JJ53Q = 122
as the mnemonic sign. *33pB in Or. 2349 is a clerical error,
due to a transposition of the middle letters, since such a
name does not occur. The sign V12Vb = 122 given in the
editio princeps I could not find in the MSS.

(51) For QUI:: (Deut. XXIX 9— XXX 20) which has
40 verses, Or. 2626 gives the mnemonic sign iTTliT = 40,
which does not occur in the Hebrew Bible, whilst the
editio princeps gives 122^ = 40 as the sign. All the other
MSS. count this and the following Parashas together.

(52) For H^l (Deut. XXXI 1 — 30) which has 30 verses,
Or. 2626 gives iTp»T = 30 as the mnemonic sign. The remark
f/^D rP3"TN 'V in the editio princeps, i. e. that "this Parasha
has 70 verses and that the sign is \VYWb *= 70", is misleading,
since this sign belongs to the two Parashas counted to-
gether, as all the MSS. have it, with the exception of
Or. 2626. As Jacob b. Chayim has already given the number
of verses for the preceding Parasha by itself, there are
only 30 verses left for this Parasha. Hence, this number,
and the mnemonic sign which he gives here, are incorrect.
Orient. 2626 which, as we have seen, counts these Parashas
separately with separate signs, remarks at the end of the
second Parasha PP7TK '»>D1 'V XiVEnD pmm N^pIDD i. e.
the verses of the two Parashas together are 70 and the
sign is rpnN = 70.

(53) For i:n«H (Deut. XXXII 1 — 52) which has
^2 verses, all the MSS. except one give 3^3 = 52 as the
mnemonic sign. In Add. 9401 both the number of verses
and the sign are omitted. Hence, they are also omitted in
the editio princeps.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 85

(54) For n^hn nkn (Deut. xxxm i— xxxiv 12)

which has 44 verses, all the MSS. as well as the editio princeps
give ^XWil = 41 as the mnemonic sign. Jacob b. Chayim
gives also ^N = 41 as a second sign which I could not
find in the MSS.

Accordingly the sum-total of the verses in Deutero-
nomy is 955; and the middle verse is Deut. XVII 10. This
agrees with the statement in the Massoretic Summary
given in the MSS. at the end of Deuteronomy.

In accordance with the same MSS. the sum-total of
the verses in the entire Pentateuch is 5845 or 5843 and the
middle verses is Levit. VIII 8. The difference of the two
verses as we have seen, is due to the two-fold manner
in which the Decalogue is divided in Exodus XX and
Deut. V.

Before proceeding to discuss the verses in the
Prophets and in the Hagiographa I must give here the
following Table of the verses &c. which has been preserved
in the Yemen MSS. of the Pentateuch, and which professes
to be a copy from the celebrated Ben Asher Codex: —

"The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the Soul" [Ps. XIX 7].
The number of verses in Genesis is 1534, the sign is "lb *]K = 1534

The number of verses in Exodus is 1209, the sign is 121X = 1209

The number of verses in Leviticus is 859, the sign is fr]t23 = 859

The number of verses in Numbers is 1288, the sign is jiblX = 1288

The number of verses in Deuteronomy is 955, the sign is pn = 955

••• t - • : t • : t :

"ft *\i< jE-c nrr^i Era^ri niK& warn f\bn nH«?K-d nso bw ffpiewi rao
tbix pro D^piD's rwm dtik&i s^k nw rfcai nso bm ffpiDien dtsd
$pi je-c rwm DTWbrri nina nsiEir snp'i nac bv zrpirsn arc

ribix j£*c rrai&rci D'DiiatPi dtik&i *]*?« vd nman nsc bt» D"pic"£n d*od
TjH i^-c roam D^am mxa rtrn cnmn n^x -jbo btp a-piren mac

86 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

And observe that from Gen. I I to XXXIV 19 is 1000 verses.

From Gen. XXX 20 to Exod. XVII 15 is 1000 verses.

From Exod. XVII 16 to Levit. XI 8 is 1000 verses.1

From Levit. XI 8 to Numb. X 16 is 1000 verses.

From Numb. X 17 to Deut. Ill 29 is 1000 verses.

And from Deut. IV I to XXXIV 12 is 845 verses.

The number of verses in the whole Pentateuch is 5845, the sign is na ^H = 5845.
The number of the large Parashas in the Pentateuch is 53, the sign is Kimbtf = 53.
The number of the Scdarim in the Pentateuch is 154, the sign is T\*\-?bp = 154.

The middle verse of Genesis is XXVIII 4.

The middle verse of Exodus is XXII 27.

The middle verse of Leviticus is XV 7.

The middle verse of Numbers is XVII 20.

The middle verse of Deuteronomy is XVII 10.

The middle verse of the entire Pentateuch is Levit. VIII 7.

The middle word of the Pentateuch is Levit. X 16, W"ll belongs to
the first half and W^l to the second.

- T

The middle letter of the Pentateuch is the Vav in [UlS Levit. XI 42.

1 lba»n Vb OnttDfc occurs both in Levit. XI 8 and verse II. It is,
therefore, difficult to say whether the reference is to the first or the second.

♦mpiD^a t)bK man ton ny mwana ja m

♦ D^pimB *]bK m DB b$ T *D IV man XB^I [131

♦D^piD^a ejbK ibaxn *6 onwaa ny m -b jai
♦D^piD^a p]bK pwan mm ny anwaa pi
♦D^pia^s e^bK paw b*nw nnyi ir twti pi
♦D^piD^a nwam a^yana mxa miaw minn ma ir yaw bKiws nnyi jai
rib P]H jb^d nwam B^yanxi mxa miawi a^anx wan irnnn na nw D^piD^Bnaiae
NliTbx dw paan naa nrwna a^wani rwbw mvin bw mmmn nrwnsn pai
Hft^p dw paan ud nyanxi a^wam nxa rmn nw anna psan

♦mnn nann byi nnwns naa "am

♦bbpn *6 dv6k maw .nnxi naa s2jn

♦a?n nwaa yaiam mp^i naa ^am

♦in nnax nwx wan mm nami naa ^n

nam <a bv mwyi tfiati ,nnK naa '•am

♦jwnn n« vby aw^i b^ib^bb nbiB nrnnn satn

♦ma wnm ma wm ,nwa wrni wm niaTia nmnn *acn

♦jinn n nvmxa pmnn '■am

1 Or. 2350 adds mm *xanyam Fpri p^a.

CHAP. VI. | The Division into Verses. 87

The correct number of words in the Pentateuch is 79856, the sign is

WTOtt = 79856.
The correct number of letters in the Pentateuch is 409000, the sign is

pi — 409000.

The number of Closed Sections in the Pentateuch is 290.
And of Open Sections 379.
Altogether the Sections are 669.

All this is according to the model Codex which was in Egypt and
which was revised by Ben Asher wo studied it many years when correcting it.1

It will thus be seen that the Babylonian Parashas
or Annual Pericopes are treated in the MSS. as chapters
for the purpose of numbering the verses.

The Prophets and the Hagiographa. — With regard
to the Prophets and Hagiographa no sectional divisions in
any book have been utilized for the purpose of counting the
number of verses in them. The MSS. simply state in the
margin of the text against the verse in question that it
is the middle verse of the book, and at the end of each
book the MSS. give a Summary saying that it contains so
many verses &c. &c. Hence, discrepancies or variations in the
sum-total of the verses given in the Massoretic Summaries
at the end of a book cannot easily be traced to the precise
section which is affected by the divergent statement in

D"twarn rwm rnaa rtti&Pi s^k tft»«n nwi anrvaK bv rmn biff mM nsoa

pri fttD niK& rrcni t)b& niK& pa-at n&xn mm biff nrniKn nanai

rwn niK» tho rnoinom ,ffwn dtike rninn bs biff mmnan nwitoii p&i

•ntBTiB from d"w nixta wo bin

•TTMnw tjnaaaa rmw neon ppTi bv bsn

1 .lpwnw iD3 rro-i d"3p in pnp-n -wk p

1 This Summary is appended to Oriental 2349, fol. 144a; Orient.
2350, fol. 304&; Orient. 2364, fol. 184 fc; Orient. 2365, fol. 202 b and Orient.
1379, fol. 373 b.

88 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

the MSS. Instances of this difficulty will be seen in the
following analysis of each book.

Joshua. — All the MSS. state that Joshua has 656 verses !
and that XIII 25 is the middle verse. This is perfectly
correct without the two verses in the text which are in
the margin in modern editions, as will be seen from the
following analysis of the number of verses in each of the
twenty-four chapters in this book: (I) 18 -f (II) 24 -f- (III)
17 + (IV) 24 + (V) 15 + (VI) 27 + (VII) 26 + (VIII) 35 +
(IX) 27 + (X) 43 + (XI) 23 + (XII) 24 + (XIII) 25 + 8*
+ (XIV) 15 + (XV) 63 + (XVI) 10 + (XVII) 18 +
(XVIII) 28 4- (XIX) 51 + (XX) 9 + (XXI) 43 + (XXII) 34
-I- (XXIII) 16 + (XXIV) 33 = 656. But the difficulty is
that those MSS. which have the two verses in the text
also give the sum-total as 656, and XIII 25 as the middle
verse. We must, therefore., conclude that the Massoretic
Summary at the end of the book has been taken from
Lists which belonged to a School that excluded these
verses from the text.

Judges. — In this book the statement of the MSS. in
the Summary at the end; that it has 618 verses, 3 and that
the middle verse is X 7, i. e. the 309th verse is in accord
with the modern editions which affix the number of the
verses to each of the twenty-one chapters, as will be seen
from the following: (I) 36 + (II) 23 -f- (III) 31 + (IV) 24 +
(V) 31 + VI 40 + (VII) 25 + (VIII) 35 + (IX) 57 + (X) 7 +

1 Thus the St. Petersburg Codex, at the end of the Prophets (fol. 224*7)
which gives a list of the verses, says D^plDS HW1 trtPttm mXfc tt'P INPUT.

2 Whereever two enumerations of verses are given (as in this case)
under one chapter, it denotes the division of the book; the first number of
verses belongs to the first half of the book, and the second number, belongs
to the second half.

3 Thus the St. Petersburg Codex, fol. 224^ ftSttW niK& BtP '^DUB

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 89

ii + (XI) 40 + (XII) 15 + (XIII) 25 + (XIV) 20 + (XV)
20 -L (XVI) 3 1 + (XVII) 1 3 + (XVIII) 3 1 + (XIX) 30 + (XX)
48 -f- (XXI) 25 = 618. This computation; however, is in
accordance with the Western School; the Easterns read
VIII 29 and 30 as one verse.

Samuel. — "With regard to the total number of verses in
Samuel all the MSS., except two, state that this book has 1506
verses, which agrees with the number of the verses affixed to
the chapters in the modern editions, as will be seen from the
following analysis: (I) 28 + (II) 36 + (III) 21 + (IV) 22 -f (V)
12 + (VI) 21 + (VII) 17 + (VIII) 22 + (IX) 27 + (X) 27 +
(XI) 15 + (XII) 25 + (XIII) 23 4- (XIV) 52 + (XV) 35 +
(XVI) 23 + (XVII) 58 + (XVIII) 30 + (XIX) 24 + (XX)
42 + (XXI) 16 + (XXII) 23 + (XXIII) 29 + (XXIV) 22 +
(XXV) 44 + (XXVI) 25 + (XXVII) 12 + (XXVIII) 23 + 2
+ (XXIX) 1 1 + (XXX) 31 + (XXXI) 13 + (2 Sam. I.) 27 +
(II) 32 + (HI) 39 + (IV) 12 + (V) 25 + (VI) 23 4 (VII) 29
+ (VIII) 18 + (IX) 13 + (X) 19 + (XI) 27 + (XII) 31 +
(XIII) 39 + (XIV) 33 + (XV) 37 + (XVI) 23 + (XVII) 29 +
(XVIII) 32 -f- (XIX) 44 + (XX) 26 -j- (XXI) 22 + (XXII) 5 1
+ (XXIII) 39 + (XXIV) 25 = 1506.

The St. Petersburg Codex and Arund. Orient. 16,
however, state that it has 1504. The latter also gives the
mnemonic sign to the same effect.1 If this is correct these
MSS. must exhibit a School in which some of the verses
were differently divided.

The real difficulty arises from the fact that Or. 2201,
Arundel Or. 16, Harley 5710—11, Add. 15251 &c. state in
the Summary that 1 Sam. XXVIII 23 is the middle verse
and remark in the margin of the text against this verse

1 Thus the St. Petersburg Codex 'Dfi HWlKl ITKE MaiTI ^K btfl&ff.
In Arund. Or. 16, fol. 74/', it is rZIKI niXE EH3rfl r^X ^Kl&tP *p'C2 Z'ZZ

•in >H

90 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

"the middle of the book". This is followed by all the
early and modern editions which record the Massoretic
divisions. But on examination of the verses in the respec-
tive chapters, as given above, it will be seen that if we take
PUB blV i"lttfi6l = XXVIII 24 to begin the second half
of the book, it leaves 754 verses for the first half and the
second half has only 752 verses. The difficulty, however,
is removed by the Massoretic Summary in Harley 5720. This
MS. which is one of the oldest known at present, not
only states at the end of the book that the second half
begins with XXVIII 23, 1 but has in the margin of the
text against this verse, that "the half is here". Hence, if
the other MSS. and the editions are taken to represent
a different School they do not harmonise with the present
numbering of the verses. For the sake of harmony we
must adopt the Massoretic note as given in Harley 5720.
Kings. — All the MSS. distinctly state that this book
has 1534 verses, and that 1 Kings XXII 6 begins the
second half.2 But from the following analysis it will be
seen that it has 1536 verses and that the middle shows that
each half contains 768 verses, thus yielding two verses more
then the Massoretic summary gives: (I) 53 -f- (H) 46 ~r
(III) 28 + (IV) 20 -f (V) 32 + (VI) 38 + (VII) 51 + (VIII)
66 + (IX) 28 + (X) 29 + (XI) 43 + (XII) 33 + (XIII) 34 +
(XIV) 31 + (XV) 34 + (XVI) 34 + (XVII) 24+ (XVIII) 46
+ (XIX) 21 + (XX) 43 + (XXI) 29 + (XXII) 5 + 49 +
(2 Kings I) 18 + (II) 25 -1- (HI) 27 + (IV) 44 + (V) 27 +
(VI) 33 + (VII) 20 -J- (VIII) 29 + (IX) 37 + (X) 36 + (XI)
20 + (XII) 22 + (XIII) 25 + (XIV) 29 + (XV) 38 + (XVI)

1 Foi. 112b na*n jx^i "wim.

"I'm ,]&d yfr\ ,nranxi o^tri maa tram s^k wi&qi 'pics di^d 2

The St. Petersburg Codex, however, gives it niKfc ram S^K "'Sbtt

•nwarn d^p

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 91

2G + (XVII) 41 + (XVIII) 37 + (XIX) 37 + (XX) 21 +
(XXI) 26 + (XXII) 20 + (XXIII) 37 + (XXIV) 20 + (XXV)
30= 1536. The difference of the two verses between the
Massoretic Summary and the sum-total according to the
number of verses in each chapter I have been unable to trace.
Isaiah. — The Babylonian Codex, which is the oldest
dated MS. of the Former Prophets, gives the number of
verses in this Book as 1272.1 Harley 5720, however, which
comes next in age of this portion of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures, states at the end of Isaiah that it has 1291 verses;2
and that XXXIII 21 begins the second half of the book
This is confirmed by Or. 22 11, Arund. Or. 16, Add. 1525 1
and other MSS., which not only give the number in words,
but exhibit it in the mnemonic sign. This fully agrees with
the sum-total of the number of verses in each chapter, as
will be seen from the following analysis: (I) 31 -f~ (II) 22 -\-
(III) 26 + (IV) 6 + (V) 30 + (VI) 13 + (VII) 25 + (VIII) 23
+ (IX) 20 + (X) 34 + (XI) 16 + (XII) 6 + (XIII) 22 +
(XIV) 32 + (XV) 9 + (XVI) 14 + (XVII) 14 + (XVIII) 7 +
(XIX) 25 + (XX) 6 + (XXI) 17 + (XXII) 25 + (XXIII)
18 -j- (XXIV) 23 + (XXV) 12 + (XXVI) 21 + (XXVII) 13 +
(XXVIII) 29 + (XXIX) 24 + (XXX) 33 -f (XXXI) 9 -f
(XXXII) 20 + (XXXIII) 20 + 4 + (XXXIV) 17 + (XXXV)
10 + (XXXVI) 22 -j- (XXXVII) 38 + (XXXVIII) 22 +
(XXXIX) 8 + (XL) 31 + (XLI) 29 -f (XLII) 25 + (XLIII)
28 + (XLIV) 28 + (XLV) 25 + (XL VI) 13 + (XLVII) 15 +
(XLVIII) 22 + (XLIX) 26 + (L) 11 + (LI) 23 + (LII) 15 +
(LIII) 12 + (LIV) 17 + (LV) 13 + (LVI) 12 + (LVII) 21 +
(LVIII) 14 -f (LIX) 21 + (LX) 22 + (LXI) 11 + (LXII) 12
-f (LXIII) 19 + (LXIV) 11 -j- (LXV) 25 +• (LXVI) 24
= 1291 .

1 The St. Petersburg Codex T£l D^Pl CTnX&l ^K !TOT\

2 Fol. 225 a with 200 b *irttfl DWfYI D'nXfcl tftft ^£D bvS D'plC-:,-! D13D

92 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

Oriental 2201, however, which is dated A. D. 1246
states as distinctly that Isaiah has 1295 verses and gives
the mnemonic sign to this effect.1 This is followed in the
Rabbinic Bible edited by Felix Pratenses, Bomberg 15 17,
by Jacob b. Chayim 1524—5 and in all the modern editions
which give the Massoretic Summary, except by Dr. Baer.
As both the MSS. and editions which give this number
agree that XXXIII 21 begins the second half of the book,
they must exhibit a School which divided some of the
verses differently, so as to obtain four more verses than
the majority of the MSS. give.

Dr. Baer's statement that this book has 1292 verses
is against both the MSS., and the editions. The mnemonic
sign which he gives to support this number is his own
invention. How the first, second and third editions of the
Bible came to mark in the text XXXVI 1 as the second
half of the book I have not been able to trace.

Jeremiah. — The total number of verses in this book,
viz. 1365, which I have given in the first part of the
Summary, is in accordance with the statement in most of
the MSS. which give it both in words and in the mne-
monic sign.2 This is the number given in Harley 5720;
Harley 1528; Oriental 2201 and Add. 15251 and this is also
the number given by Jacob b. Chayim in the first edition
of his Rabbinic Bible. The Babylonian Codex, however,
gives 1364 as the number3 which I have given in the
Summary as a variation. The latter agrees with the sum-
total obtained from a computation of the verses in our
chapters, as will be seen from the following analysis: (I) 19 -j»

wn ,rrxik jd'di ,tMam tjwm btik&i *\bx nw nsd bw D-pioa didd 1

w TTK OW dK "d Fol. 208 b.

.ndrK '3d'di from owi niaa wbw *}bK nad bv opiDun cnac -

3 This number "ibpTinTl is more fully given in the St. Petersburg Codex
at the end where it is stated as follows: iTO'TITI ffTOI ffiK& VlhW\ ^^K IHdT.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 93

(II) 37 + (HI) 25 + (IV) 31 + (V) 31 + (VI) 30 + (VII) 34
+ (VIII) 23 + (IX) 25 + (X) 25 + (XI) 23 + (XII) 17 +
(XIII) 27 -J- (XIV) 22 + (XV) 21 + (XVI) 21 -J- (XVII) 27
+ (XVIII) 23 + (XIX) 15 + (XX) 18 + (XXI) 14 + (XXII)
30 + (XXIII) 40 + (XXIV) 10 + (XXV) 38 + (XXVI) 24
+ (XXVII) 22 + (XXVIII) 10 + 7 + (XXIX) 32 + (XXX)
24 4- (XXXI) 40 4- (XXXII) 44 + (XXXIII) 26 + (XXXIV)
22 + (XXXV) 19 + (XXXVI) 32 + (XXXVII) 21 +
(XXXVIII) 28 + (XXXIX) 18 + (XL) .6 + (XLI) .8 +
(XLII) 22 -f- (XLIII) 13 4- (XLIV) 30 + (XLV) 5 -f- (XL VI)
28 + (XL VII) 7 4- (XLVIII) 47 + (XLIX) 39 4- (L) 46 +
(LI) 64 4- (LII) 34 = 1364.

It is remarkable that the Babylonian Codex which
is supposed to exhibit the Eastern recension, should have
one verse less than the Western MSS., inasmuch as accord-
ing to the Orientals, XXXIV 2 and XXXVIII 28 are
respectively divided into two verses, thus yielding a total
of 1367 verses. But this is one of the many facts which
show how precarious it is to adduce the St. Petersburg Codex
by itself in support of an Eastern reading. Here again we
have the inexplicable fact that the editio princeps of the
Prophets (Naples i486 — 7); the first edition of the entire
Hebrew Bible (Soncino 1488); and the second edition
(Naples 1 49 1 — 3) introduce into the text ^n = half before
XXVI i, thus marking it as beginning the second half of
Jeremiah.

Ezekiel. — Not only the St. Petersburg Codex, but Or.
2201; Arundel Or. 16; Add. 15252 and Oriental 2627
distinctly say that this book has 1273 verses.1 This number
is also given by Felix Pratensis and Jacob b. Chayim.
Harley 5710- 11, however, as distinctly declares that it

1 At the end of the Prophets the St. Petersburg Codex, however,
gives it as 1270 == i?pp s\b& bVfp'IT.

94 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

has 1274 verses.1 This statement is all the more remarkable
since XL 8, which is wanting in the Septuagint, the Syriac and
Vulgate is also wanting in this MS. Two verses must,
therefore, have been obtained in this Codex by a different
verse division. Still more remarkable is the fact that all
these MSS., including the St. Petersburg Codex and Harley
5710 — ii; give Ezek. XXVI 1 as beginning- the second
half of Ezekiel. Both the St. Petersburg and the Harley
MSS. also mark in the margin of the text against XXIV
24 that it is the middle of the book. Again, in the first,
second and third editions of the Hebrew text2 Ezekiel
XXV 15 is marked in the text as half of the book. These
variations undoubtedly preserve a difference in the verse
division which obtained in the different Massoretic Schools,
but which I have not been able to trace.

According to the current verse-divisions which are
supported by most MSS. and which I have followed,
Ezekiel has 1273 verses, and XXVI 1 is marked as beginning
the second half. This will be seen from the following
analysis: (I) 28 + (II) 10 + (III) 27 -f (IV) 17 + (V) 17 -f
(VI) 14 + (VII) 27 + (VIII) 18 + (IX) 11 + (X) 22 +
(XI) 25 + (XII) 28 + (XIII) 23 + (XIV) 23 + (XV) 8 +
(XVI) 63 + (XVII) 24 + (XVIII) 32 + (XIX) 14 + (XX) 44 +
(XXI) 37 + (XXII) 31 + (XXIII) 49 + (XXIV) 27 +
(XXV) 1 7 -f (XXVI) 1 + 20 + (XXVII) 36 + (XXVIII) 26 +
(XXIX) 21 + (XXX) 26 + (XXXI) 18 + (XXXII) 32 +
(XXXIII) 33 + (XXXIV) 31 + (XXXV) 15 + (XXXVI)
38 + (XXXVII) 28 -f (XXXVIII) 23 -f (XXXIX) 29 -f
(XL) 49 + (XLI) 26 + (XLII) 20 + (XLIII) 27 + (XLIV)
31 + (XLV) 25 + (XLVI) 24 -f- (XLVII) 23 + (XL VIII)
35 = 1273.

♦nynKi enema D'TMOi sfix bxp'n* 122:1 x*pics psa 1

2 Soncino 1485 — 86, Soncino 1488. and Naples 1491 — 93.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 95

The Minor Prophets. — The St. Petersburg Codex groups
all the twelve Minor Prophets together as one book, and
states that it has 1050 verses. J With this sum-total all the
other MSS. agree. As some MSS., however, give the
number of verses at the end of each book, and also quote
the middle verses and moreover as there are some variations
in the figures, I shall give each book separately.

Hosea. — All the MSS. agree that Hosea has 197 verses.
This coincides with the verse-division and the number of
verses given in each chapter of the book, as will be seen
from the following analysis: (I) 9 -f- (II) 25 +• (III) 5 -|-
(IV) 19 + (V) 15 + (VI) 11 + (VII) 16 + (VIII) 14 + (IX)
17 + (X) 15 + (XI) 11 + (XII) 15 + (XIII) 15 + (XIV)
10 = 197. The mnemonic sign which I have given is in Arund.
Oriental 16, viz. f'tfp |»>D1. Dr. Baer's sign n"V2p [BD1 1 could
not find in any MSS., and is probably his own invention.
Arundel Orient. 16 gives in the Massoretic Summary at the
end of this book VII 13 2 to as the middle verse which I have
printed. But as this is the ninety-sixth verse, viz. 9 -|-
2 5 + 5 + l9 + I5 + 1 1 + I2 = 96; it leaves the second part
with 100 verses. There must, therefore, have been some
difference in the Schools in the verse-division, if this
Massoretic half is not a mistake.

Joel. — All the MSS., except one, give the number of
verses in this book as 73. This agrees with the number in
our editions, which is as follows: (I) 20 -\- (II) 27 -f- (III)
5 -|- (IV) 21 — 73. Arundel Or. 16, however, gives the
number as 70, and II 18 as the middle verse. Hence,
according to the ordinary computation, this leaves 38
verses for the first half of the book, and 35 verses for the
second half. That there can be no clerical error in this

1 The St. Petersburg Codex gives the sum-total of the Minor Prophets

♦-3&B 1T13 *D Unb -"IK V3>'m 2

96 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

MS. is evident, since the number is given in words, and is
followed by a mnemonic sign of the same value.1 It is
from this MS. that I have given the alternative reading
in the Summary to my edition. The mnemonic sign b"jfi =
73 given by Dr. Baer is probably his own invention
as I could not find it in the MSS.

Amos. — The statement in the Massoretic Summary at
the end of this book, and in most of the MSS., that it
contains 146 verses agrees with the sum-total of the verses
in the chapters in our editions, as will be seen from the
following analysis: (I) 15 -f (II) 16 -f (III) 15 4- (IV) 13 -f
(V) 27 + (VI) 14 + (VII) 17 + (VIII) 14 + (IX) 15 = 146.
Arundel Oriental 16, however, distinctly says that it has
144 verses, and gives the mnemonic sign to the same effect.2
This MS., moreover, gives Amos V 15 as the middle verse,
which allots 74 verses to the first half and 70 to the
second half, according to the ordinary computation of the
verses. It appears to me that these discrepancies can only
be reconciled on the supposition that the different state-
ments are taken from different Massoretic Schools, where
variants existed with regard to the verse-divisions.

Obadiah. — With regard to this book which has 2 1 verses,
Arundel Oriental 16, as far I can trace it, is the only MS.
which gives the middle verse, viz. verse 11.

Jonah. — There is no difference in the MSS. as regards
the verses in Jonah. They all agree that it has 48 verses,
which coincides with our editions, as may be seen from the
following: (I) 16 -f (II) 1 1 -f- (Ill) 10 + (IV) 1 1 = 48. Arundel
Oriental 16 is again the only MS., which gives the middle
verse, viz. II 8.

burn in*6 w K3p,n vstrn .p"1 ja^ai ,a^a,t» bpn xnsci piaa aisa 1

♦iar bv
♦nap ja-Di nys-iKi a^a^Ki nxa aiajn maoi "pica a^aa 2

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 97

Micah. — All theMSS. agree that this book has 1 05 verses,
as follows: (I) 16 + (II) 13 + (HI) 12 + (IV) 14 + (V) 14 +
(VI) 16 4- (VII) 20 = 105. Here again. Arund. Oriental 16 is
the only MS. which gives the middle verse, viz. II 11. But
this is manifestly a mistake since it asigns only 27
verses to the first half of the book, and leaves the second
half with 78 verses. It will be seen that the Summary at
the end of this book in my edition is taken from this MS.

Nahum. — In this book which according to the MSS.
has 47 verses, viz. (I) 14 + (H) x4 + (HI) 19 = 47; Arundel
Oriental 16, gives II 10 as the middle verse.

Habakkuk. — There is a difference of opinion with regard
to the number of verses in this book. Arundel Oriental 16
and Add. 1525 1 distinctly state that it has 57 verses,1
and give a mnemonic sign to the same effect, whilst
Oriental 2201 and Harley 1528 as distinctly state that it
has only 56 verses.2 The latter number, which is also given
by Jacob b. Chayim in the first edition of his Rabbinic
Bible, coincides with the number of verses in our editions,
as will be seen from the following: (I) 1 7 — |— (II) 20 -f-
(III) 1 g = 56. Arundel Oriental 16 is again the only MS.
which gives the middle verse, viz. II 12.

Zephaniah. — All the MSS. agree that this book has
53 verses. This coincides with the number of verses in our
editions which is as follows: (I) 18 -j- (II) 15 -j- (III) 20 = 53.
Here again, Arundel Oriental 16 gives the middle verse,
viz. II 9.

Haggai. — - The MSS. differ as to the number of verses
in this book. Thus, Arundel Oriental 16 states that it has
37 verses3 and gives the mnemonic sign to the same effect,
whilst Oriental 2201 and Harley 1528 declare that it has

♦mwn wean pipzn s*n; bw "pica -p 2
.vb ftwi wehwn npa» k-ibdi -p-ct. wno 3

98 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

38 verses. f This is not only given by Jacob b. Chayim,
but coincides with the number of verses in our editions,
as will be seen from the following: (I) 15 + (H) 23 = 38.
Arundel Oriental 16 which gives II 6 as the beginning
of the second half, assigns 20 verses to the first half of
the book and 18 verses to the second half, according to
the present computation of the verses. The Massoretic Sum-
mary at the end of this book in Add. 152512 is due to a
clerical error. The Scribe simply repeated here the Masso-
retic note from the previous book. Here again, Arundel
Or. 16 is the only MS. which gives the middle verse, viz. II 6.

Zecharidh. — All the MSS. agree that this book has 2 1 1
verses, which are as follows: (1) 17 -f- (II) 17 + (III) 10 +
(IV) 14 + (V) 11 + (VI) 15 + (VII) 14 + (VIII) 23 + (IX)
17 + (X) 12 + (XI) 17 + (XII) 14 + (XIII) 9 + (XIV) 21
= 211. Arundel Oriental 16 gives the middle verse3 Zech.
X 41, which must be a mistake, since this gives for the first
half 141 verses, viz. 17 — j— 17 -f- 10 — [— 14 — j- 11 + 1 5 -j- 14
-f- 23-)- 17 + 3 = 141, and leaves the second half only 70
verses, viz. 9 -4- 17-1-14-1-9 + 21 = 70.

Malachi. - — Arundel Oriental 16 says that this book has
54 verses and gives the mnemonic sign to the same effect.4
The other MSS. do not give the number of verses in this
book separately, but the first edition of the Rabbinic
Bible by Jacob b. Chayim, gives it as 55, which agrees
with the number of verses in our editions, as will be seen
from the following: (I) 14 + (II) 17 -j- (III) 24 = 55. Dr. Baer,
who also gives the number 55, affixes to it the mnemonic
sign T^f] = 55, which is his own making. Arundel
Oriental ;6 gives II 14 as the middle verse.

♦na&rci wbw k*^ biff "pica aro l

♦ji jxrai rvxfom a^an ••an ^ea bw '^piaa id •->

♦nar6a niffp uaa itv ma hds i^aa ■racrn 3

»p Jfc-Di a^am npa-iK ^*6& naan ^pias aiaa 4

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 9(1

From the above analysis it will be seen that the
sum-total of the verses in the Minor Prophets, given in
the Massoretic List, which is preseved in the Babylonian
Codex (dated 916) agrees with the respective numbers
assigned to each book separately in the majority of the
MSS., which I have collated, viz. (Hosea) 197 + (Joel) 73 +
(Amos) 146 -f- (Obadiah) 21 -f- (Jonah) 48 -f- (Micah) 105 -f
(Nahum) 47 + (Habakkuk) 56 -j- (Zephaniah) 53 + (Haggai)
38 + (Zechariah) 211 + (Malachi) 55 = 1050. It will also
be seen that according to Arundel Oriental 16 which is
one of the most magnificent MSS. in existence, belonging to
the 13th century, and which is evidently a model Codex,
there are only 1044 verses in the Minor Prophets, accord-
ing to the separate number of verses assigned to each book
in the respective Massoretic Summaries. The difference in
the six verses, is due to the fact that in four books it has
seven verses less: viz. in Joel it gives 70 verses instead
of 73, in Amos it gives 144 instead of 146, in Haggai it
gives 37 instead of 38, and in Malachi it gives 54 instead
of 55, whilst in one book, i. e. Habakkuk, it gives 57 instead
of 56, or one more verse than in the other MSS. Yet in
the Massoretic Summary, which this very MS. appends to
the Minor Prophets, it gives the sum-total as 1050 verses,
and Micah III 12 as the middle verse l thus agreeing with
the other MSS. It is, therefore, only natural to assume that
the different Massoretic Summaries, which are appended
to the separate books, are derived from different Lists
belonging to Schools where other verse-divisions obtained.
The HagiogTapha. — Psalms. The Massoretic Summary
at the end of the Psalter states that it has 2527 verses, and that
Ps. LXXVIII 36 is the middle verse. This entirely agrees with

jvx tehbxi pb wn ,jrvin jaw ,D^iam *\b* nw? nn piDs dido

100 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

the sum-total of the verses in the present Psalms as will be
seen from the following analysis : (1)6 -j- (II) 1 2 -f (III) 9 -\- (IV)

9 + (V) 13 + (VI) 11 + (VII) 18 + (VIII) 10 -f- (IX) 21 +
(X) 18 + (XI) 7 + (XII) 9 + (XIII) 6 + (XIV) 7 + (XV) 5
+ (XVI) 11 + (XVII) 15 + (XVIII) 51 + (XIX) 15 + (XX)

10 -f (XXI) 14 + (XXII) 32 + (XXIII) 6 4- (XXIV) 10 4-
(XXV) 22 4- (XXVI) 12 4- (XXVII) 14 + (XXVIII) 9 4-
(XXIX) 11 + (XXX) 13 4- (XXXI) 25 + (XXXII) 11 +
(XXXIII) 22 4- (XXXIV) 23 + (XXXV) 28 4- (XXXVI)
13 4- (XXXVII) 40 4- (XXXVIII) 23 4 (XXXIX) 14 -[_
(XL) 18 4- (XLI) 14 4- (XLII) 12 + (XLIII) 5 + (XLIV) 27
4- (XLV) 18 4- (XL VI) 12 +- (XL VII) 10 + (XLVIII) 15 4-
(XLIX) 21 + (L) 25 4- (LI) 21 + (LII) 11 4- (LIII) 7 +
(LIV) 9 4- (LV) 24 + (LVI) 14 -j- (LVII) 12 + (LVIII) 12 +
(LIX) 18 + (LX) 14 4 (LXI) 9 4- (LXII) 13 4- (LXIII) 12 +
(LXIV) 11 4- (LXV) 14 + (LXVI) 20 + (LXVII) 8 -f
(LXVIII) 36 4- (LXIX) 37 + (LXX) 6 + (LXXI) 24 -j-
(LXXII) 20 4- (LXXIII) 28 4- (LXXIV) 23 -(- (LXXV) 1 1 +
(LXXVI) 13 4- (LXXVII) 21 4- (LXXVIII) 36 4- 36 -f-
(LXXIX) 134- (LXXX) 20 -f- (LXXXI) 1 7 + (LXXXII) 8 +
(LXXXIII) 19 4- (LXXXI V) 13 -f (LXXXV) 14 -f
(LXXXVI) 17 4- (LXXX VII) 7 4- (LXXXVIII) 19 -f
(LXXXIX) 53 4- (XC) 17 4- (XCI) 16 -f (XCII) 16 4-
(XCIII) 5 + (XCIV) 23 + (XCV) 11 + (XCVI) 13 +
(XCVII) 12 + (XCVIII) 9 4- (XCIX) 9 + (C) 5 + (CI) 8 4-
(CII) 29 + (CIII) 22 4 (CIV) 35 + (CV) 45 + (CVI) 48 4-
(CVII) 43 + (CVIII) 14 + (CIX) 31 4- (CX) 7 4- (CXI) 10 +
(CXII) 10 + (CXIII) 9 + (CXIV) 8 -f- (CXV) 18 4
(CXVI) 19 + (CXVII) 2 4- (CXVIII) 29 + (CXIX) 176 +
(CXX) 7 -f (CXXI) 8 4- (CXXII) 9 4- (CXXIII) 4 +
(CXXIV) 8 4- (CXXV) 5 + (CXXVI) 6 + (CXXVII) 5 +
(CXXVIII) 6 4- (CXXIX) 8 4- (CXXX) 8 4- (CXXXI) 3 +
(CXX.XII) 18 4- (CXXXIII) 3 + (CXXXIV) 3 + (CXXXV)
21 -4 (CXXX VI) 26 4- (CXXXVII) 9 + (CXXX VIII) 8 4-

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 101

(CXXXIX) 24 + (CXL) 14 + (CXLI) 10 + (CXLII) 8 +
(CXLIII) 12 + (CXLIV) 15 + (CXLV) 21 + (CXL VI) 10 +
(CXLVII) 20 + (CXL VIII) 14 + (CXLIX) 9 + (CL) 6 = 2527.
It is, however, to be remarked that this sum-total is accord-
ing to the Westerns. The Easterns have three verses less,
since they do not divide Ps. XXII 5, 6; LII 1, 2; LIII 1, 2
and CXXIX 5, 6, thus reading four verses instead of eight;
whilst they divide Ps. XC 1 into two verses which yields
a total of 2524, so far as their verse division is known
at present.

Proverbs. — The statement in the Massoretic Summary
at the end of this book that it contains 915 verses, and
that XVI 18 is the middle verse, coincides with the num-
ber of verses in each chapter in our editions, as will be
seen from the following: (I) 33 -j- (II) 22 -\- (III) 35 + (IV)
27 + (V) 23 + (VI) 35 + (VII) 27 + (VIII) 36 + (IX) 18 + (X)

32 + (XI) 31 + (XII) 28 + (XIII) 25 + (XIV) 35 + (XV)

33 + (XVI) 18 + 15 + (XVII) 28 + (XVIII) 24 + (XIX)
29 + (XX) 30 + (XXI) 31 + (XXII) 29 + (XXIII) 35 +
(XXIV) 34 + (XXV) 28 + (XXVI) 28 + (XXVII) 27 +
(XXVIII) 28 + (XXIX) 27 + (XXX) 33 + (XXXI) 31

= 9i5-

Job. — Harley 5710 — 11, Arundel Oriental 16 which are
standard Codices, and Oriental 2375 which represents the
Yemen School, state in the Massoretic Summary at the end
of this book that it has 1070 verses, and that the middle
verse is XXII 16,1 whilst Oriental 2201, which is a very
beautiful Spanish MS. dated A. D. 1246, and Add. 1525 1,
which is one of the latest MSS., as distinctly state that it
has 1075 verses and give the mnemonic sign to the same
effect.2 The sum-total of the verses, however, according to

.nr *6i lafcp im rwn tPjWMn *\bx xisch "pies naca »
itetip *rx ram -nra j^ci mrsm dtopi ?\hx k-isdi *rpic£ dido 2

♦nr x^-

102 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

the present verse-division as indicated in our text, is 1071
as will be seen from the following analysis: (I) 22 -\- (II)
13 + (III) 26 + (IV) 21 + (V) 27 + (VI) 30 + (VII) 21 +
(VIII) 22 + (IX) 35 + (X) 22 + (XI) 20 + (XII) 25 + (XIII)
28 + (XIV) 22 + (XV) 35 + (XVI) 22 + (XVII) 16 +
(XVIII) 21 -f (XIX) 29 + (XX) 29 + (XXI) 34 + (XXII)
16 + 14 + (XXIII) 17 + (XXIV) 25 + (XXV) 6 + (XXVI)
14+ (XXVII) 23 + (XXVIII) 2 8 + (XXIX) 25+ (XXX) 31 +
(XXXI) 40 + (XXXII) 2^ + (XXXIII) 33 + (XXXIV) 37
+ (XXXV) 1 6 -f (XXXVI) 33 + (XXXVII) 24 + (XXXVIII)
41 + (XXXIX) 30 + (XL) 32 + (XLI) 26 + (XLII) 17 = 1069.
There is, therefore, a difference of one verse only between
this number and the smaller sum given in the first named
MSS. It is remarkable that the MSS. which give 1075 verses
in this book, also mark XXII 16 as the middle verse. As
this assigns to the first half 536 verses, the difference
in the verse-division must to a great extent be in the
second half according to the Massoretic Summary appended
to these MSS.

Canticles. — All the MSS. give 117 verses as the
number contained in this book, and IV 14 as the middle
verse. This coincides with the number exhibited in our
editions, as will be seen from the following: (I) 17 -f- (II)

17 + (in) n + (IV) ,4 + 2 + (V) 16 + (vi) 12 + (vii) i4

+ (VIII) .4=117-

Ruth. — The MSS. are equally unanimous in stating
that this book has 85 verses, and that II 21 is the middle
verse. This coincides with the number of verses in each
chapter in our editions, viz. (I) 22 + (II) 21 -\- 2 (III) 18 -f-
(IV) 22 =85.

Lamentations. — There is also no difference in the
MSS. with regard to the number of verses in this book
which is given as 154, and the middle verse of which is
stated to be III 34. This is exactly the number exhibited

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 103

in our editions as follows: (1)2 2 -|- (II) 22 -f- (HI) 34 ! 32

+ (IV) 22 + (V) 22 = 154-

Ecclesiastes. — According- to the MSS. this book has
222 verses, and the middle verse is VI 9. The editions
exhibit the same number, which is as follows: (I) 18 -\- (II) 26
+ (III) 22 + (IV) 17 + (V) 19 + (VI) 9 + 3 + (VII) 29
+ (VIII) 17 + (IX) 18 + (X) 20 + (XI) 10 + (XII)

14 = 222.

Esther. — This book, according to the MSS., has 167
verses, and the middle verse is V 7. The following analysis
shows that the editions faithfully follow the MSS.: (I) 22
+ (II) 23 + (HI) 15 + (IV) 17 + (V) 7 + 7 + (VI) 14 +
(VII) 10 + (VIII) 17 + (IX) 32 + (X) 3= 167. The Masso-
retic Summary at the end of this book in Harley 5710 — 11
gives the number of verses in this book1 as 177, but this
is manifestly a mistake, for D*lDtP1 ought to be iltPtPI as is
evident from the mnemonic sign. These MSS. which group
the Five Megilloth together also give the sum-total of all
the verses as 745, and they give Esther V 7 as the middle
verse.

Daniel. — Oriental 2201; Harley 5710 — 11 and Oriental
2375 state that this book has 357 verses, and that the middle
verse is VI 17.2 This coincides with the verse-division in the
present text as will be seen from the following analysis : (I) 2 1
+ (II) 49 + (HI) 33 + (IV) 34 + (V) 30 + (VI) 1 1 + 18 +
(VII) 28 + (VIII) 27 + (IX) 27 + (X) 21 + (XI) 45 + (XII) 13
= 357. The statement in the Massoretic Summary at the
end of this book in Add. 15251 that it contains 308 verses3
is manifestly due to a clerical error, as is evident from the
fact that VI 11 is here given as the middle verse which

,:cp p^-ci nmtri oron hk& inDK rbxi bw d^idbh Diro i

•rrow awrn rnwa vhm bmi bv *p'C2 c*rc -

•win -6k s-nnj vatm na&ttn niMta w*?w ^K*:m '•pioa disc 3

104 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

assigns 179 verses to the first half, thus leaving* 179 verses
for the second half making a total of 358. This is exactly
the number of verses according to the computation of
our present text. Jacob b. Chayim, who also states that this
book contains 357 verses, gives V 30 as the middle verse.1
This, however, is a mistake as is partly indicated in the
last word which does not occur in chap. V 30, but is to
be found in VI 12.

Ezra-Nehemiah. — According to Harley 5710 — n,
Oriental 2212 and Oriental 2375 this book has 685 verses and
Nehemiah III 32 is the middle verse.2 This coincides
with the sum-total of the number of the verses in the
separate chapters in the present editions, as will be seen
from the following analysis: (I) 1 1 — |— (II) 70 -f- (III) 13 -f-
(IV) 24 + (V) 17 +(VI) 22 +(VII) 28 + (VIII) 36 + (IX) 15
+ (X) 44 + (Nell. I) 11 + (II) 20 + (III) 32 + 6 + (IV) 17
+ (V) 19 + (VI) 19 + (VII) 12 + (VIII) 18 + (IX) 37 +
(X) 40 -f (XI) 36 + (XII) 47 + (XIII) 31 = 685. Arundel'
Oriental 16, however, and Add. 1525 1 expressly state that
it has 688 verses, and give the mnemonic sign to the same
effect.3 Jacob b. Chayim in the first edition of his Rabbinic
Bible combines the two statements, in the Massoretic
Summary at the end of the book. In expressing the numbers
he gives 688 verses, whilst in the mnemonic sign he has
685. The two different statements manifestly proceed
from different Massoretic Schools which preserved varia-
tions in the verse-divisions.

Chronicles. — ■ Harley 5710 — 11, Arundel Oriental
16 and Add. 15251 state that Chronicles has 1765 verses,
and that 1 Chron. XXV 23 begins the second half of the
book. This coincides with the sum-total of the verses in

♦wnn niwbn b^p K^bn m ratm *

♦ninn \itd ntwam D^iatm mx& rcrc nee bw d^piD^sn ai^c 2

♦I&--D bns i^d rna&ttfi a^atri niKia w Kitrn 'pios arc 3

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 105

the separate chapters as will be seen from the following
analysis: (I) 54 + (H) 55 + (HI) 24 -f (IV) 43 + (V) 41 +
(VI) 66 -f (VII) 40 + (VIII) 40 + (IX) 44 + (X) 14 + (XI) 47
+ (XII) 41 + (XIII) 14 + (XIV) 17 + (XV) 29 + (XVI) 43
+ (XVII) 27 + (XVIII) 17 + (XIX) 19 + (XX) 8 + (XXI) 30
+ (XXII) 19 + (XXIII) 32 + (XXIV) 31 + (XXV) 31 +
(XXVI) 32 -I- (XXVII) 24 -J- 10 + (XXVIII) 21 + (XXIX) 30
+ ( 1 Chron. 1) 18 + (II) 17 -4- (III) 17 + (IV) 22 + (V) 14
+ (VI) 42 + (VII) 22 -f (VIII) 18 + (IX) 31 + (X) 19 +
(XI) 23 + (XII) 16 + (XIII) 23 + (XIV) 14 + (XV) 19 +
(XVI) 14 + (XVII) 19 + (XVIII) 34 + (XIX) 1 1 + (XX) 37
-4- (XXI) 20 + (XXII) 12 + (XXIII) 21 -4- (XXIV) 27 +
(XXV) 28 -4- (XXVI) 23 + (XXVII) 9 + (XXVIII) 27 +
(XXIX) 36 + (XXX) 27 -4- (XXXI) 21 + (XXXII) i3 +
(XXXIII) 25 + (XXXIV) 33 + (XXXV) 27 + (XXXVI) 23
= 1765. The Massoretic statement; therefore, at the end of
this book in the editio princeps of Jacob b. Chayim's
Rabbinic Bible that it has 1565 verses1 must be a mis-
print. How Dr. Baer came to say that this Rabbinic Bible
stated the number of verses to be 1656 2 passes my com-
prehension.

Though no such detailed numbering of the verses of
the sectional divisions in the separate books exists in the
case of the Prophets and the Hagiographa, yet a List has
been preserved which not only divides each book into two
halves, but gives the middle verse of each of the groups
of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. It also divides
each such group into fourths so that the number of verses
in every subdivision may easily be ascertained. I subjoin
this List from a Yemen MS.3 of the Hagiographa in the
British Museum.

•nwam d"wi niKia warn tp& crim "nm naa bw a'pican Diro 1

♦nwrci c'w'eit m«a irri t\bx 2

3 Oriental 2212, fol. 228 a.

106 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

The Pentateuch has 5845 verses.

The Prophets have 9294 verses.

The Hagiographa have 8064 verses.

The Scriptures altogether have 23203 verses.

The following two verses are the mnemonic sign:

And all the days that Adam lived were 930 years.' [Gen. V 5.]

And all the firstborn males by the number of names were 22373.'
[Numb. Ill 43] 930 + 22273 = 23203.

The sign thereof is: 'Remember man that nothing must be put to it
nor any thing be taken from it: and God doeth it that men should fear
before him.' [Eccl. Ill 14.]

The middle verse of the Prophets is Isa. XVII 3.

The first fourth of the Former Prophets is Judg. XV 4.

The middle verse of the Former Prophets is 2 Sam. Ill 12.

The last fourth of the Former Prophets is I Kings XII 24.

The first fourth of the Latter Prophets is Isa. LXV 23.

The middle verse of the Latter Prophets is Jerem. XLIX 9.

The last fourth of the Latter Prophets is Ezek. XLI 7.

The first fourth of the Hagiographa is Ps. XX 10.

The middle verse of the Hagiographa is Ps. CXXX 3.

The last fourth of the Hagiographa is Prov. XXV 13.

na *p warn a^a-iKi maa roiaun efb^k ntwan mm bv a^pia'an aiaa

-nhio 'i&a ito-iki awm dtik&i m^k rwn trowa w ffpwtn bibb

♦nan 'na^ai nyanxi a^tn d^k naiap amna bv a^pie^n aiaa

si 23 ra^a nti)hw a^nxai »\bx Earwin rwibw lbia inpan ba

a^an rw niaa ran ■■n ntrx b-tk "a1 ba rrrn a'pia^s "wa a^iba abiBi

:na^i nw
*)bx D"i»ri ow ampab r6rai arm pa maa> naaaa nat niBB ba Ttt

n^sba ik-to ntry DrfcKm r\r6 fx i;aai rpart ptvbr anx nsi ja^a

: anaxa ma natwi b^bdh ■•am
mxa a6tp ^ib^i paw ^i Wttm anaan ranx bw jitwnn rwsn

t &bvw

nn bx a^Bxba naax r6an a^a^n ansa yanx "wi

: bbtix ay ian^n xbi ibyn xb v,h iax wi a^a>x-n ansa snnx iviran

:r6'nsf? •n'r xbi pnb w xb awnxn ansa ra^x rrra-i

tnw Kibn -[b ixa anm bx awinicn ansan pan* ■•acn

:r6i?»b naaai rami ownin d*"ibb ranx bw ""awn rriran

nrsnp ara la^ay "[ban nrann ■»*■ raman btsi

*w ^a w ni «n^trn mail? as* a^ainan ••an

:vr6a?b rax; -vat Tatp ara aba? nai'B ■'awn a-aran rriran

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 107

Apart from these sum-totals indicated in the margin
ag-ainst the respective places, or in the Massoretic Summaries
at the end of each book, there is no numeration of the verses
in the MSS. or in the early editions of the Hebrew Bible.
The introduction of the numbers against each verse is of
comparatively late date. As far as I can trace it, the small
Hebrew Psalter published by Froben, Basle 1563, is the
first portion of the Hebrew Bible with the Arabic
numerals in the margin against each verse. But these
numerals which Froben adopted from the Latin Quin-
cuplex Psalter1 published by Stephens in 1509 do, not
agree with the Massoretic verse-divisions.

According to the Massorah the titles are a constituent
part of the Psalm, and hence, have not only the ordinary verse-
divisions, but are counted as the first verse, or the first two
verses according to their length and contents. Thus the title
of Ps. LX has no number in the Froben Psalter, and
accordingly this Psalm has only twelve verses marked in
the margin, whereas in the Hebrew the title constitutes
two verses, and the Psalm has fourteen verses. If the
student were to test the Massoretic numbers by the
notation given in this edition, or for that matter by the
numerals exhibited in the Authorised Version, he would be
involved in hopeless contradiction.

Arias Montanus, who was the first to break up the
Hebrew text into the Christian chapters and to introduce
the Hebrew numerals into the body of the text itself, was
also the first who, seven years later, expanded this
plan. He attached the Arabic numerals in the margin
against each verse throughout the whole Hebrew Bible
published at Antwerp in 157 1. As far as the Jews were

1 For a description of this Psalter see Bibliotheca Sussexiana Vol. I,

108 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

concerned he precluded the possibility of their using this
splendid edition with the interlinear Latin translation,
because he wantonly placed the sign of the Cross at
every verse-division throughout the whole Hebrew text.
The statement, therefore, which is often made, that
Athias, whose edition of the Hebrew Bible appeared ninety
years later (1659 — 61), was the first who introduced the
numerals against the verses, is inaccurate.

Chap. VII.
The Number of the Words.

Though the ancient authorities inform us that the guild
of Scribes who numbered the verses, also counted the
words, l it is beyond the scope of this Introduction to
enter into a datailed discussion on the accuracy or otherwise
of the sum-total of words in the whole Bible The case,
however, is different as far as the Pentateuch is concerned.
The splendid MS. No. i in the Madrid University Library
which is dated A. D. 1280 and the Standard Codex Xo. 1 in the
Imperial and Royal Court Library Vienna give the number
of words in every Parasha throughout the whole Pentateuch.
Jacob b. Chayim had evidently no knowledge of the existence
of this Massoretic List, since it is only at the end of six
out of the fifty -four Parashas that he gives the number of
words. As the numbers given both in the Madrid List and
in the fragments preserved by Jacob b. Chayim in the editio
princeps do not agree with the number I give at the end
of each Parasha I am obliged to notice the difference.

It so happens that I possess a MS. of the Pentateuch
in which every two pages are followed by a page con-
taining two tables. These tables register line for line, the
number of times each letter of the Alphabet occurs in the
two corresponding pages, as well as the number of words in
each line. At the end of each table, the sum-total is given of
each separate letter, and of the words in the pages in question.

1 Vide supra, p. 64.

110

Introduction. [CHAP. VII.

Text and Table of the

ttf

-1

196

■*

i— "■

if*

CO
CO

CHAP. VII.] The Number of the Words.

first page of the MS.

ill

Genesis I 1—16.

28
33
32
30
35
33

6
34
34
30
34
16
33
29
34
29
35
30
33
31

5
33
38
32
29
30

766

:pKn n«i fffifn nx D'ttbg «na irtfx-3 X
nm. Dinn ^z~bv Tjtfrn rtj m firm pnxrn 2
vp a^ribx tb«»i : aw *yrbv nan"ija a'tfbK 3
aia-a TtorrnK b^k «")!! Jiirn;i 11k 4
a\ibx *np»i H^nn pai nixn pa a^rtbx fynafl 5

ipa^rri a^ir'rP. ^^ ^Tt W^l D1' ^x1?

j nnx DT1

^pa ^ P?p T'n3 rp") V] afi^f ">£#!! 6
pa b*eg\ rp*£rn$ B'tfbx tojw : a^ab o?a pa 7
^jga n^x wn pni rp"£> nnna •nttoj bw
-»jti ratf ^pnb bt6k *np?i *|?",,rpl rpli? 8

j lag Di^ *i|5h-,n;i an#
aipa-bx a'atpn nnna Bhan mp1' a\-6x nax*i 9
ari^x xnpsi tp",n,l ^^ fi^ni 'W 10
tprteK irw dw ing dwi rnpa^i p^K ntra_sJ?
at'y xtfn p-ixn Ktfnri a^x naxsi :aia-^a 11
-by i'a-iinntfK ira1? •na r\wv ns pi? rij srija
jpHra a^y Kan pnxn xi'ini :p-rri pnxn 12
inrab 13-ijni ntrx ■nfc-rrtpp pjn wo^ fit
or npa-\-n ang-vn taia^a avt^x xn»i 13

bnanb awn srp-o rnxa \t a'rinx naxsi 14
wwb*, anjna^ nnxb rrn rb^ri pai aisn pa
-nr -rort fffctfri rpna nhixan ym :b*:iti 15
rhfcan ''SttrnK a*r6x toFi tja"W pnxn ic

-nxi BiM nbtraab nna.n nixrsn-nx ff^wi

112 Introduction. [CHAP. VII.

To convey a proper idea of the minuteness and accuracy
with which this plan is worked out throughout the entire
Pentateuch, I give on pp. i 10, 1 1 1 a copy of the first page of
the MS. containing Gen. I i — 1 6 with the table belonging to it.

By this means I have been able to control the
Massoretic Summaries with respect to the number of letters
and words in the Pentateuch, and it is from this MS.
that I appended the sum-total to each Parasha, and at the
end of each book of the Pentateuch. It is with the aid here
afforded, that the inaccuracy of the sum-totals given in
some of the Parashas in both these MSS. as well as in
Jacob b. Chayim's Massoretic fragments become apparent.

Thus the Madrid Codex No. i, from which in con-
junction with the Grammatico-Massoretic Treatise in the
Yemen MSS. I printed the Summaries at the end of each
Parasha, no fewer than ten out of the fifty-four Parashas
have incorrect sum-totals of words. They are exhibited in
the following Table where the Arabic figures before each
Parasha describe its number according to the sequence
of the fifty-four Parashas in the Annual Cycle.

Table showing the variations in the number of words in the

Parasha.

Parashas

Madrid MS.

My MS.

rbxs^ [=--

Gen. XXXII 4— XXXVI 43

1976

1996

r?* c=

„ XLI 1— XLIV 17

1871

2022

1 1

wi [=

„ XLIV 18— XLVII 27

1469

I480

-rm [=

„ XLVII 28— L 26

1 149

II58

mm [=

Exod. VI 2— IX 35

I523

I748

•msa [=

Numb. I 1 — IV 20

1893

1823

npn [==

XIX 1— XXII 1

H45

1245

CHD'S [=

XXV 10— XXX 1

1886

1887

wan "3 [=

Deut. XXVI 1— XXIX 8

1746

1747

iriitn [=

„ XXXII 1 — 5

6 1 4

615

15572

I572I

CHAP. VII.] The Number of the Words. 113

As the sum-totals in the forty-four Parashas agree with
the numbers in my MS., there is no doubt that the variations
exhibited in the Madrid Codex in these ten Parashas are due
to clerical errors. I have, therefore, substituted in all these in-
stances the numbers in accordance with the Tables in my MS.

From the Tables in my MS., moreover, it is also
evident that the sum-totals of words given in the printed
Massorah in the editio princeps of Jacob b. Chayim's
Rabbinic Bible at the end of six Parashas is incorrect and
must be corrected as follows:

(10) rp£ [= Gen. XLI i— XLIV 17], which according to
the printed Massorah has 2025 words,1 ought only to have
2022 words.

(38) nip [= Numb. XVI 1 1— XVIII 32], which the printed
Massorah tells us has 1462 words,2 ought to be 1409 words.

(39) npn [= Numb. XIX 1— XXII 1], which according to
the printed Massorah has 1454 words,3 ought to be 1245 words.

(40) pbl [= Numb. XXII 2— XXV 9], which it says has
1450 words,4 ought to be 1455 words.

(45) pnnxi [=Deut. Ill 23— VII 1 1], which the Massorah
states has 1870 words,5 ought to be 1878 words and

(46) npr [= Deut. VII 12— XI 25], which the Massorah
tells us has 1746 words,6 ought to be 1747 words.

The Number of the Letters.
Still more glaring is the sum-total of the number of
letters in Genesis which the Massorah gives in the Summary
at the end of this book. Here the printed Massorah tells
us that Genesis has 4395 letters,7 whereas it has 87064.

♦!Y3 D'B^K rVQTn l

♦n"cn *)^k nirm 2

♦Tsn *]bx niaiifi 3

♦3'M ?\bx msTn ■•

♦irnn ?[bx nwhi 5

♦r&trn tput rvDTii 6

♦niarn owm mx& vhm D-aba "i rnvrnxi :

Part II.
The text itself.

Hitherto I have dwelt upon the outer form of the
text into which I have introduced changes in accordance
with the Massoretic rules. I shall now describe the con-
dition of the text itself and how far it has been affected
by the principles which have guided me in preparing it.

Chap. I.

Dagesh and Raphe.

In all Massoretic MSS. of all Schools, whether Spanish,
Italian, Franco-Italian or German, not only are the aspirated
letters (DMl^Q), uniformly denoted by Raphe, but the silent
Aleph (X) in the middle of a word, and the He (H), both in
the middle and at the end of words, are duly marked with
the horizontal stroke. Thus for instance 108*1 and he said
(Gen. I 3 &c), I^HIQ Pedahzur (Numb. I 10 &c.) flYl? roxil
as thou comest to Gerar (Gen. X 19). The only exceptions
are (1) when the aspirate has a superlinear accent, in which
case it would be difficult to place both the horizontal
stroke and the accent on the top of the letter, and
(2) in the ineffable name niiT which never has the Raphe
on the final He. Indeed there are some MSS. which have
the Raphe even on the consonants with the superlinear
accents, though it mars the evenness of the lines.

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 115

The editors of the first edition of the Pentateuch
(Bologna 1482) conscientiously endeavoured to reproduce
these Raphes in the first few folios, but owing to typo-
graphical difficulties which at that early stage of Hebrew
printing the compositors could not overcome, they used
it very sparingly after folios 4^. The printers of Lisbon,
however, who nine years later published the magnificent
fourth edition of the Pentateuch in 1491, and who issued
from the same printing- office the books of Isaiah and
Jeremiah, faithfully reproduced the Raphes as they are
exhibited in all the Massoretically pointed MSS. The less
skilful printers, however, could not easily express the
aspirates with the horizontal stroke. Hence, they dis-
appeared altogether in the editions subsequent to 1492.
But whatever excuse may be made for the early printers
on the score of typographical difficulties, there is no
justification for modern editors who profess faithfully to
reproduce the Massoretic text, for their departure from
the uniform practice of all the MSS. I have, therefore,
reverted to the correct Lisbon editions of 1491 and 1492
and restored in form the Massoretic text in accordance
with the Massoretic MSS., disregarding the enormous
labour which it entailed upon me of minutely examining
every consonant for the purpose of horizontally marking"
all the letters which have the Raphe in the MSS.

From time immemorial, the custodians of the Hebrew
Scriptures have enjoined it most strictly that those who
are engaged in public reading* are to exercise the greatest
care to pronounce very distinctly every letter and to
impart to every consonant its proper value. But beyond
this injunction they have attached no visible sign to any
particular letter, which in their estimation might preclude
its being weakened or absorbed by another letter in close
conjunction therewith. At a later time, however, one or

116 Introduction. [CHAP. I

two isolated purists resorted to the expedient of putting-
a Dagesh into letters in certain positions to safeguard their
distinct pronunciation. Hence, Yekuthiel the Naktan states
that in some MSS. the letter Nun at the beginning of the
name in the phrase \M~\2 tJie son of Nun (Deut. XXXII 4)
has a Dagesh. Though Yekuthiel himself does not give
here the reason for this abnormal position of the Dagesh}
it is manifest that the purist who inserted it thereby
intended to guard this Nun at the beginning of the word
against being absorbed or weakened in pronunciation by
the Nun which ends the preceding word.

Heidenheim, who first called attention to Yekuthiel's
remark, declares that this practice obtained wherever two
of the same letters occurred, one at the end of a word
and one at the beginning of the immediately following
word. In such a case a Dagesh is put in the initial letter
to guard it from being absorbed. In the Haphtara to
Bereshith, viz. Isa. XLII 5— XLIII io, where he gives the
reason for putting a Dagesh in the Nun of n£ttf3 breath
(Isa. XLII 5), he also quotes the following: \wb"b^ and
every tongue (Isa. LIV 17), nn^"tON^ to eah\ bread (Gen.

1 It is remarkable that in the edition of the K^TlpJl pi? in Heidenheim's
Pentateuch, Yekuthiel's words on Deut. XXXII 44 are as follows: D^fcBDK IP*
rb rOlttDfi WfttnS Vbsnn *6tP np pin nK (Witt there are Spanish Codices
which have Dagesh in the Nun to guard it from being absorbed by its
neighbour which is close to it This indeed makes Yekuthiel himself give the
reason, whereas in the two MSS. of Yekuthiel's Ayin Hakore in the British
Museum, it is simply 13113 ,talp *»1 riTBfcS pi tsVoWl pip pi Tl |13 '&B&MTI 'XpftZ
l|tt5 "Hpl |1J p Comp. Add. 19776, fol. 234^, and Or. 853, fol. 67b. Heiden-
heim's edition also differs materially throughout from these MSS. Heidenheim's
own words on Yekuthiel's remark are as follows: Dlfclpfc HE23 .IT TH!3n "02

wnn pjids nw man rwrvw ^n^ ^on Da™& ptp rrrcK-Q 'a m&srp Bifcsi
Dwabrc *6k rbsm p *i»rcr6 ns mpim p-ripi mmw rwin wco nan
^iDn jnas rowinn ravin iT&yn D^yabi pios Dtr prvwa Drrra pea to

CHAP. I.J Dagesh and Raphe. 117

XXXI 54), 1^'bV to heart (Mai. II 2), ]W& nnb unto them
from sorrow (Esther IX 22) &cl

We shall now contrast the prototype with the copy
by Drs. Baer and Delitzsch which is as follows:

This Dagesh is in accordance with the correct MSS. and is in accordance
with the rule that when in two words which belong to one another, the
same two consonants follow each other, the one at the end of one word and
the other at the beginning of the next word, the second of these consonants
is furnished with Dagesh as a sign that this letter is to be read with special
emphasis, so that it may not be absorbed and rendered inaudible by careless
and hasty reading in the former identical letter In the current editions this
Dagesh is absent, because its import has not been understood.2

Delitzsch, moreover, illustrates this use of the Dagesh
by adducing the following six instances from the Psalms:

(1) v#-tan Ps. ix 2; (2) wi-bv xv3; (3) *m-uv xxvi 4;

(4) Wmi !?»Xn CV 44; and (5 and 6) D'B D^ WIS OW
CVII 35, and he assures us that this is to be found in the
correct Codices. From the fact, however, that he relies upon
Heidenheim's remarks in corroboration of this statement,

1 Comp. the preceding note in Heidenheim's Pentateuch called 1Mif2
DTO with Yekuthiel's impJl }"V published in five Vols. Rodelheim 18 18 — 21.
The Haphtara in question is in the Appendix to Vol. I.

2 Dieses Dagesch steht nach dem Vorbilde correcter Handschriften und
nach der Regel, dass, wenn in zwei zusammengehorigen Wortern zwei gleiche
Consonanten, der eine am Ende des ersten und der andere am Anfange des
zweiten Wortes, einander folgen, der zweite dieser Consonanten ein Dagesch
erhalt, und zwar als Merkzeichen, dass dieser Buchstabe mit besonderem
Ausdruck zu lesen ist, damit er nicht bei sorglos eiligem Lesen in den vorigen
gleichen Buchstaben verschlungen und unhorbar werde.* In den gangbaren
Druckausgaben fehlt dieses Dagesch. Man hat es vernachlassigt, weil man seinen
Zweck nicht kannte. Zeitschrift fur die gesammte lutherische Theologie unci
Kirche, Vol. XXIV, p. 413, Leipzig 1863.

* Siehe Heidenheim's Besprechung der Sache in seinem Pentateuch-
Commentar zu Anfang der Haftarath Bereschith und Desselben Pentateuch-
Ausgabe Meor Enajim zu Deut. 32, 44.

118 Introduction. [CHAP. J.

it is evident that Delitzsch himself did not examine the
Codices, nor was he aware that Heidenheim's version of
Yekuthiel is contrary to the MSS.

But Yekuthiel, upon whom the whole of this fabric is
reared, treats only upon the single phrase fD"p and makes
no allusion whatever to the existence of the Dagesh in the
second of the two identical consonants in any other com-
bination. And even with regard to V\^~]l itself, he does
not say that this is the orthography in correct MSS., but
simply remarks "in some Spanish Codices the Nun has Dagesh" .

"What, however, is still more surprising, is the fact
that of the twenty-nine instances, in which pl"p occurs in
the Hebrew Bible, no fewer than sixteen are to be found
in the Pentateuch alone,1 and that Heidenheim himself, who
formulated this rule in connection with this very phrase,
has not inserted the Dagesh in the second Nun in a single
passage. And though this absence of the Dagesh is in
accordance with most of the Codices and with all the
editions, yet Dr. Baer has inserted it in all the passages
wherever [li"p occurs in the parts of the Hebrew Bible
which he has published.

The other instances adduced by Heidenheim and
Delitzsch in illustration of this supposed canon require a
more detailed examination since some modern Grammarians,
who have not had an opportunity to examine the MSS.
for themselves, have accepted this orthography as a fact.
The following are the five passages adduced by Heiden-
heim and the six instances quoted by Delitzsch arranged
in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible with the
MSS. which testify against their orthography.

1 Comp. Exod. XXXIII II; Numb. XI 28; XIII 8, 16; XIV 6, 30,
38; XXVI 65; XXVII 18; XXXII 12, 28; XXXIV 17; Deut. I 38; XXXI 23;
XXXII 44; XXXIV 9.

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 1 1 9

(i) Gen. XXXI 54; XXXVII 25.

Dn'?"^X<? with Dagesh, Heidenheim and Baer.

Dn^'^DX^ without Dagesh, Orient. 4445 the oldest MS.
extant; Arundel Orient. 2 dated A. D. 12 16; Orient.
2201 dated A. D. 1246; Add. 9401 — 9402 dated A. D
1286; Harley 5710 — n; Add. 21 160; Add. 15451 ;
Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252;
Orient. 4227; Orient. 2626 — 28; Orient. 2348; Orient.
2349; Orient. 2350; the first edition of the Pentateuch
Bologna 1482; the first edition of the entire Bible
1488; the Lisbon edition of the Pentateuch 1491;
the second edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93;
the third edition of the Bible, Brescia 1494; the
Complutensian Polyglot; the first Rabbinic Bible
by Felix Pratensis, Venice 1 5 1 7 ; the second quarto
Bible, Bomberg 152 1, and the first edition of the
Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim,
Venice 1524 — 25.
(2) Isaiah XLII 5.

nBtP3 [fU with Dagesh, Heidenheim.

\Vy&l tt"U without Dagesh, Babylon Codex dated A. D.
916; Orient. 2201; Harley 5710 — 11; Arund. Orient.
16; Add. 1 5451; Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add.
15251; Add. 15252; Orient. 1478; Orient. 2091;
Orient. 4227; Orient. 2626 — 28; the Lisbon edition
of Isaiah 1492 and all the early editions specified
under No. 1. Now Orient. 1478 is the remarkable
Jerusalem MS. which Dr. Baer has collated1 and
which he quotes in his notes on Ps. Ill 7, yet he
omitted to state that this Codex has not the Dagesh
in question. Indeed he himself has violated this
eccentric rule by omitting the Dagesh here, though

1 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. II, Preface, fol. 3.

120 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

Heidenheim adduces this passage in confirmation
of this canon.

(3) Isaiah LIV 17.

p^"^31 with Dagesh, Baer.

\Wb~by\ without Dagesh, Babylon Codex; Orient. 2201 ;

Harley 5710— 11; Arund. Orient. 16; Add. 15 451;

Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252;

Orient. 1478; Orient. 2091; Orient. 4227; Orient.

2626 — 28 and all the early editions.

(4) Psalm IX 2.

'3^"^32 with Dagesh, Baer.

^^■^32 without Dagesh, Orient. 2201 ; Harley 5710 — 1 1 ;

Arund. Orient. 16; Add. 15451; Harley 1528; Add.

15250; Add. 1525 1 ; Add. 15252; Orient. 2091 ; Orient.

4227; Orient. 2626 — 28; the first edition of the

Hagiographa, Naples i486 — 87, and all the early

editions.

(5) Psalm XV 3.

W'p'iV with Dagesh, Baer.

Wb'bV without Dagesh, Orient. 2201 ; Harley 5710 — 1 1 ;

Arund. Orient. 16; Add. 15451; Harley 1528; Add.

15250; Add. 1 5251; Add. 15252; Orient. 2091; Orient.

4227; Orient. 2626 — 28 and all the early editions

(6) Psalm XXVI 4.

TIE DP with Dagesh, Baer.

Tift UV without Dagesh, Orient. 2201 ; Harley 5710 — 1 1 ;

Arund. Or. 16; Add. 15451 ; Harley 1528; Add.

15250; Add. 1525 1 ; Add. 15252; Orient. 2091; Orient.

4227; Orient. 2626—28 and all the early editions.

(7) Psalm CV 44.

D^K*? *?am with Dagesh, Baer.

D^ftN^ ^EPl without Dagesh, all the above named MSS.
and all the editions without a single exception.

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 121

(8, 9) Psalm CVII 35.

D'B D;*6 13123 nW with Dagesh, Baer.
D>» 03*6 131? DtP* without Dagesh, all the MSS. and
all the editions without an exception.

(10) Malachi II 2.

2^"bV with Dagesh, Baer.

2b'bV without Dagesh, all the MSS. and all the editions
without exception.

(11) Esther IX 22.

pre Dd^ with Dagesh.

pr» UVh without Dagesh, all the MSS. and all the
editions without an exception.

It will thus be seen that not a single one of the eleven
instances which Heidenheim and Dr. Baer have adduced
in illustration of the rule formulated by them, has the
slightest support from the MSS. and the editions. The
MSS. which I have collated for this purpose are mostly
model Codices and represent all Schools, and different
countries from the earliest date down to the invention of
printing. There may be one or two MSS. in which this
eccentric Dagesh has been introduced by some purist,
but I have not been able to find it in a single one among
the numerous Codices which I have collated. To introduce,
therefore, such an innovation throughout the Hebrew Bible
upon such slender evidence, if indeed it is to be called
evidence at all, is a most unjustifiable defacing of the text.

The Dagesh is also inserted by Dr. Baer in consonants
which follow a gutteral with silent Sheva. Delitzsch, who
defends this innovation, declares that it is to be found in
all good MSS. and hence lays down the following rule:

It is designed that the letter which is thus sharpened is to be pro-
nounced emphatically. It begins a new syllable since the preceding gutteral
is to be read with silent Sheva. The Dagesh warns us that it is not to be
pronounced D y^Hl »ittl?D /Hpntt, a pronunciation which is in itself admissible

122 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

but which in the passages in question is not correct according to tradition.
This Dagesh too, has been neglected in the current editions. Yet it is
attested most emphatically by the Massorah which indicates it mostly by
Dagesh (tt?H) in those places where it ought to be, and by Raphe (^SH) where
it ought not to be. Thus for instance on ^DK^I the Massorah has the following
remark pflWl 'SI *5i1 "in 'J it occurs three times, once the Samech (D) has
Dagesh, i. e. it does not begin a syllable, the syllable begins with the
preceding gutteral = "ibX~*1 (Gen. XLII 24) and twice it has Dagesh, i. e.
it begins a syllable so that the gutteral by which it is preceded, has a silent
Sheva = "TbTfi! (Gen. XLVI 29; Exod. XIV 6). To the same effect is the
Massorah on TVDTMZ which it says ptPH "l^tTl pSI 'J, i. e. in three passages
it is npfija (Joel IV 16; Ps. XLVI 2; LXII 29), but in the other instances
it is HBH&.i

But this statement is based upon a misunderstanding
of the expressions Dagesh and Raphe as used by the

1 Auch dieses Dagesch findet sich in alien guten Handschriften. Sein
Absehen geht darauf, dass der Buchstabe, den es scharft, ausdruckvoll ge-
sprochen werde; es beginnt ja eine neue Silbe, der vorhergehende Gutteral
soil mit ruhendem Sch'ba gelesen werden; das Dagesch warnt, dass man nicht
£Th$T\ 'i^Pto 'Hpnft ausspreche — eine Aussprache, welche an sich statthaft,
aber in den betreffenden Stellen nicht die uberlieferungsgemass richtige ist.
Auch dieses Dagesch ist in den gangbaren Druckausgaben vernachlassigt. Und
doch hat es ausdriickliche Zeugnisse der Masora fur sich. Diese zeigt es da,
wo es stehen soil, meist mit V})1 an, so wie sie da, wo es nicht stehen soil,
''SI bemerkt. So macht sie z. B. zu "lEfcTI folgende Note: pt&tt 'SI 'Al *Tfi '},
d. h. dreimal kommt ~\DW\ vor; einmal ist das Samech nicht dagessirt, so dass
also nicht mit ihm, sondern mit dem vorhergehenden Gutteral die neue Silbe
anfangt ("lbX"*l Gen. XLII 24), zweimal ist das Samech dagessirt, also silben-
eroffnend, so dass also der vorstehende Gutteral ein einfaches ruhendes Sch'ba
hat pb"K*l Gen. XLVI 29, Exod. XIV 6). Ebenso bemerkt die Masora:
pBJft nKtm pan 'J riDI-iia, d. h. an drei Stellen ist nOHft zu lesen (namlich
Joel IV 16; Ps. XLVI 2; LXII 9), an den drei andern HDHtt. * Zeitschrift
fur die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, Vol. XXIV, pp. 413, 414,
Leipzig 1863.

* Siehe Heidenheim's Meor Enajim zu Gen. X 7 und die Zeitschrift
Kerem Chemcd, Jahrg. IV, S. 119. So wie oben erklart ist hat man das
masoretische iTH und ''fiH in diesen Fallen zu verstehen; Elias Levita in seinem
Masoreth ha-masoreth (II 3. g. E.) weiss es nicht befriedigend zu erklaren.

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 123

Massorah. Elias Levita, who is recognised as the highest
Massoretic authority and who was not only a contemporary
but a personal friend of Jacob b. Chayim the first compiler
and editor of the Massorah, explains it that Dagesh in the
terminology of the Massorah, denotes simple Sheva and
that Raphe means Chateph-segol or Chateph-pathach. Accord-
ingly when the Massorah says that 1Dfc«H has Dagesh in
two instances, it means that the Aleph has simple Sheva,
i. e. is pointed ^DS1*! and that in the one instance where
it is Raphe, the Aleph has Chateph-segol or is pointed IDN^.
The same is the meaning of the Massorah when it says that
*1WB has Dagesh in three instances, i. e. the letter Ayin has
simple Sheva or is pointed I^B to distinguish it from those
places where it is Raphe or where the letter Ayin has
Chateph-pathach , i. e. 1TO- Levita' s words are as follows:

I shall now return to my first subject and give you an example of a
Sheva which the Massorites call Dagesh. They make the following remark in
the Massorah : 'the expression T\foby to conceal has always Dagesh,' that is, it
is always with simple Sheva, as M^bV*1 DT>l?n hiding they shall hide (Levit.
XX 4) &c. They also say that the word fT'DH to trust has always Dagesh.
as HDHK / shall trust (Ps. LVII 2), ^DPlfc my shelter (PS. XCI 2) &c, except
in eight instances where it is Raphe, that is with Chateph-pathach or Chateph-
segol, as nDhB refuge (Joel IV 16), HDHK I shall trust (Ps. XVIII 3). They
also remark that Ttf]?E tithe occurs three times with Dagesh, as 1tW?S the
tithe of (Levit. XXVII 30) Sec, whilst in all other instances it is Raphe,
that is with Chateph-pathach, as "ItRgft the tithe of (Deut. XIV 23) &C.1

This definition by the first and foremost expositor of
the terminology of the Massorah, it is almost needless to

miDSfi noK ; vn i*npt» intfn bv bw& -ft jnfcti rrowmn ^r inn ram «
*?: pi jpwn i&^jr nbrn dki iiaa ,wm sim ^n fwia TO^tfri p«?^ bs
»piBi 'n ja pn i|ir&m *cn& •""•b -i&ik ri-iDHK -pass ^2:^ 1122 ,rcn iTDn pts6
noK pi tn ncriK mat m&p1? nona v"n ied ,buo *]tona is* nna *|&ro ^n
iaa nna pjtsro bn ,o"ian n«u bri ,^idi pxn nwya 1x22 rBWi '3 "ltPPtt

."*> KSam [3YTI ^331 1tP#a Comp. Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, pp. 203, 204 ed.
Ginsburg.

124 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

say, is in perfect harmony with the orthography of the
most correct MSS., and with all the early editions. It was
Heidenheim who, in his edition of the Pentateuch entitled
Meor Enayim (Rodelheim 1818 — 21), maintained that the
expression Dagesk in these instances denotes the visible
dot which is put in the letter following the silent Sheva,
and that Raphe means the absence of this dot in the letter
following the Chateph-pathach or Chateph-segol. "It is the
Mem/' he says on HftPI in Gen. X 7, "which has the Dagesh to
show that the Sheva which precedes it is simple, i. e. H&SH
and not like HBXtt with Chateph-pathach and with Mem
Raphe." l

That Levita's explanation is the correct one and that
the sense assigned to these Massoretic expressions by
Heidenheim, Delitzsch and Dr. Baer is contrary to the
best MSS. will be evident from an examination of the
seven examples which these expositors have adduced to
prove their theory. To facilitate reference I shall again
arrange these passages in the order of the Hebrew Bible.

I. The first passage which Heidenheim quotes and on
which, as we have seen, he formulates this rule is HBPI
Gen. X 7. This proper name he points PISJH. Dr. Baer,
who follows Heidenheim and also points it with Dagesh
in the Mem, did not even deem it necessary to make any
remark in the Notes, forming the Appendix to Genesis
that there is any variation here in the MSS. or in the
early editions. As this expression occurs six times, five
times as a proper name (Gen. X 7 twice; Ezek. XXVII 22;
1 Chron. I 9 twice), and once denoting- thunder (Job
XXXIX 19), Dr. Baer points it with Dagesh in the Mem

rtjjja i&d larai toitofe vcav nzbw awn by rnnrt dh&h nw:i phk *
imaal nam trn rfc* jijd bv niD&b mD&n bvz -pna pi ,nsn o"&m swnn
lniK -ibxsi nsi x"£n punn prta -10)23 iroa-iia epv nbK'i ^r twi to |»pb

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 125

in every instance, and in no case does he mention in the
Appendices to the several parts that there exists a
difference in the pointing of this word. This, being a test
instance, I shall give in detail both the MSS. and the
early editions, respecting its orthography.

In the passage before us there are two different
orthographies of this expression. The majority of the MSS.
and the early editions which I have collated point it
rlBXHl with Sheva under the Ayin and without Dagesh in
the Mem. This is the case in Orient. 4445, which, is the
oldest Codex extant; in Orient. 2201, which is dated A. D.
1246; Add. 9401 — 9402, dated A. D. 1286; Harley 5710— ri;
Harley 1528; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Orient. 2348; Orient.
2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2626 — 28; the first
edition of the entire Hebrew Bible, Soncino 1488; the
Lisbon edition of the Pentateuch 1491; the second edition
of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the third edition of the
Bible, Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot; Felix
Pratensis' edition of the Rabbinic Bible 15 17; and the
quarto edition, Venice 1521.

The second .way in which this expression is pointed,
is nOXni with Chateph-pathach under the Ayin. This is the
case in Arund. Orient. 2, which is dated A. D. 1 2 1 6 ; in Add.
15250; Orient. 4227 and in the first edition of the Pentateuch,
Bologna 1482. The only MS. which points it n&P*Yl with
Dagesh in the Mem, as far as my collation extended, is
Add. 1 545 1, but even this MS. points it HESJI without the
Dagesh in the second instance of this very verse. It is
probably owing to this MS. or to one like it, that Jacob
b. Chayim appended in the margin '21 Dft = Mem has
Dagesh and accordingly pointed it nSJHl- But this is the
first and the only one of the early editions which has
adopted this orthography. The most remarkable fact,
however, in connection with the orthography of this

126 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

expression, has still to be stated. Heidenheim in his edition
of the Ayin Ha-Kore gives PMMH1 with Dagesh in the Mem
as the pointing of Yekuthiel, whereas in the two MSS. of
this Nakdan in the British Museum, one, viz. Orient. 19776,
has it niBXpl with Chateph-pathach under the Ayin, whilst
Orient 856 points it nOXHI without Dagesh in the Mem,
thus exhibiting the two-fold orthography which is to be
found in almost all the MSS. and the early editions. And
yet this is the very passage in Yekuthiel upon which
Heidenheim reared his fabric.

The second instance in which this proper name occurs,
is in the latter half of this very verse, viz. Gen. X 7.
Here too the MSS. and the early editions exhibit two
kinds of orthography. The larger majority of MSS. and
editions point it n£P*l with Sheva under the Ayin and
without Dagesh in the Mem. This is the case in Orient. 4445 ;
Orient. 2201; Add. 9401 — 9402; Harley 5710 — 11; Harley
1528; Yekuthiel Orient. 853; Add. 15251; Add. 15252;
Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365 and
Orient. 2626 — 28 as well as all the above named early editions.
The MSS. which exhibit HEP*!, the second kind of ortho-
graphy, are Arund. Orient. 2, dated A. D. 12 16; Yekuthiel
in Orient. 19776; Add. 15250; Orient. 4227 and the first
edition of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482. It is remarkable
that Add. 15451, which, as we have seen, is the only MS.
representing i"I3PT! with Dagesh in the Mem, has here
HttPI without Dagesh, so that the first Rabbinic Bible with
the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim is the solitary early
edition which has H^SH with Dagesh.

The third instance in which this proper name occurs,
is Ezek. XXVII 22. Here all the MSS. with one exception
and all the editions also with one exception have TOPT]
without Dagesh in the Mem. This is the case in Orient.
2201; Harley 5710 — 11: Arund. Orient. 16; Add. 1545 1 ;

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 127

Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Orient.
2626 — 28; the second edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93;
the Latter Prophets, Pesaro 15 15; the fourth edition of
the Bible, Pesaro 151 1 — 1 5 1 7 ; the Complutensian Polyglot;
the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis
1 5 1 7 ; the Venice quarto edition 152 1 and the first edition
of Jacob b. ChaymVs Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah,
Venice 1524 — 25. The only edition which exhibits HEJpl
the second kind of orthography is that of Brescia 1494,
whilst there is one solitary MS. in the British Museum
which has flBJHI with Dagesh in the Mem, viz. Orient. 4227.
The remarkable fact in connection with this instance is that
both, Add. 1 545 1 and the first edition of Jacob b. Chayim's
Bible with the Massorah which represent this orthography in
Gen. X 7, have in the passage before us HttP*]'] without
Dagesh in the Mem.

The fourth passage in which this expression occurs,
but where it is not a proper name, is Job XXXIX 19.
All the MSS. with one exception exhibit the first ortho-
graphy, viz. TOX)1 with Sheva under the Ayin and Mem
without Dagesh. So Orient. 2201; Harley 5710 — 11; Arund.
Orient. 16; Or. 2091; Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add. 15251;
Add. 15252; Orient. 2212; Orient. 2626 — 28; the first edition
of the Hagiographa, Naples 1486—87; the second edition
of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the third edition of the
Bible, Brescia 1494; the Psalms, Proverbs, Job &c, Salonica
15 15; the Complutensian Polyglot; the Rabbinic Bible
by Felix Pratensis 151 7; the quarto Bible, Venice 1521;
and Jacob b. Chayim's first edition of the Bible with the
Massorah 1524 — 25. HOP"! the second orthography with
Chateph-pathach under the Ayin is exhibited in Orient. 4227 ;
in the first edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488; and in the
fourth edition, Pesaro 15 11— 17. From the above analysis
it will be seen that not one of the MSS. which I have

128 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

collated, nor any of the early editions have HSJH with
Dagesh in the Mem.

The fifth passage where this expression occurs, but
where it is again a proper name, is in i Chron. I 9. As
is the case in the other instances the MSS. and editions
have here the two-fold orthography, but as they also ex-
hibit a variant in the spelling, it will be best to discuss
the authorities under the different forms in which it is
written.

The first form of this name in the earlier part of the
verses is N1B1H1 with Aleph at the end, and Sheva under
the Ayin without Dagesh in the Mem. This is the case in
Orient. 2201; Arund. Orient. 16; Harley 1528; Add. 15250;
Add. 1525 1 ; the second edition of the Bible, Naples 149 1 — 93;
the Complutensian Polyglot; and the first edition of the
Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim
1524-25. The same form with Aleph, but exhibiting the
second orthography, viz. KBJHI with Cateph-pathach under
the Ayin, is to be found in Add. 15252; and in Orient. 4227,
but in none of the early editions.

The variant or the second form of this name is nftP*n
with He at the end. This also exhibits the two-fold ortho-
graphy. Thus TO3H1 with Sheva under the Ayin, but
without the Dagesh in the Mem, is the reading in Harley
5-710— 11; Orient. 2091; Orient. 2212; the first edition
of the Hagiographa, Naples 1486 — 87; the first edition
of the Bible, Soncino 1488; the first edition of the
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517; and the quarto
Bible, Venice 152 1, whilst nOXHl the second orthography
with Chateph-pathach under the Ayin is the reading of the
third and fourth editions of the Bible, Brescia 1494 and
Pesaro 151 1 — 17. It will thus be seen that KSini or najni
with Dagesh in the Mem is not the reading in any of the
MSS. or editions.

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 129

We now come to the sixth or last instance of this
expression which occurs in the latter part of the same
verse, i. e. i Chron. I 9. As the MSS. and editions also
exhibit here a variant in the spelling, I shall separate the
two different forms. The form which has the greatest MS.
authority, is nBIH with He at the end. But like its fellow
in the other passages, it has been transmitted in a two-fold
orthography. The one best attested is HttP*] with Sheva
under the Ayin, He at the end and no Dagesh in the Mem.
This is the reading in Orient. 2201 ; Harley 5710 — 1 1 ; Arund.
Orient. 16; Orient. 2091; Harley 1528; Add. 15252; Add.
15451; Orient. 2212; Orient. 2626 — 28; the Complutensian
Polyglot; the first Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 15 17;
the Venice quarto 152 1; and the first Rabbinic Bible with
the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524—25. The same
spelling, but with Chateph-pathacli under the Ayin, i. e.
nOP*1 is also exhibited in Orient. 4227; the first, third and
fourth editions of the Bible, Soncino 1488, Brescia 1494
and Pesaro 151 1— 17. The variant is KBXH with Aleph at
the end, but this too has no Dagesh in the Mem and is
to be found in Add. 15250; Add. 15251; in the first edition
of the Hagiographa, Naples i486 — 87; and in the second
edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93. Here too, therefore,
HftlH or KfilH with Dagesh in the Mem is not the reading
in any of the MSS. or early editions. But what is most
remarkable in connection with this orthography, is the fact
that the only MS. which points it with Dagesh in the Mem
in Gen. X 7 and the only early edition which exhibits the
same phenomenon, viz. Add. 15451 and the first edition
of Jacob b. Chayim's Rabbinic Bible, have it here without
Dagesh in the Mem in both parts of the verse, though
1 Chron. I 9 is a duplicate of Gen. X 7.

The result, therefore, of the above analysis of the six
instances in which this expression occurs, is as follows.

130 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

In the first passage only one MS. and one edition have
the Dagesh. In the second passage, which is the second
clause of the same verse, the same single edition has it,
but no MS., not even the one which exhibits it in the first
clause. In the third passage only one MS. has it, but not
a single edition, whilst in the fourth, fifth and sixth passages
it is not to be found in any MS. or early edition.
II. Gen. XLVI 29.

IDJOI with Dagesh, Add. 9401; Add. 1545 1 ; Orient.

4227.
IbiTI without Dagesh, Orient. 4445; which is the oldest
MS. extant; Arund. Orient. 2, dated A. D. 12 16;
Orient. 2201, dated A. D 1246; Harley 5710— 11;
Harley 1528; Add. 21 160; Add. 15251; Add. 15252;
Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient.
2365; Orient. 2451 ; Orient. 2626 — 28; the first edition
of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482; the second edition
of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the Complutensian
Polyglot; the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible
by Felix Pratensis 1 5 1 7 ; the quarto Bible, Venice
1 521; and the first edition of the Bible with the
Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. The ortho-
graphy ^DN^l with Chateph-segol under the Aleph is
exhibited in the first edition of the Bible, Soncino
1488; in the Lisbon Pentateuch 1491; and in the
third edition of the Bible, Brescia 1494.
Exod. XIV 6.

IGWl with Dagesh, Add. 9401; Harley 57 10 — 11: Add.

i545i-
Ib^l without Dagesh, Orient. 4445; Arund. Orient. 2;
Orient. 2201; Harley 1528; Add. 21 160; Add. 1525 1;
Add. 15252; Orient. 4227; Orient. 2328; Orient.
2329; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365: Orient. 2451;
Orient. 2626 — 28; the first edition of the Pentateuch,

CHAP. I | Dagesh and Raphe. 131

Bologna 1482; the Lisbon edition 1491 ; the second
edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the Complu-
tensian Polyglot; the first edition of the Rabbinic
Bible by Felix Pratensis 151 7; the quarto Bible,
Venice 1521; and the first edition of the Bible with
the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. *IDK*1
with Chateph-segol is exhibited in Add. 15250, and
in the first and third editions of the Bible, Soncino
1488 and Brescia 1494.

In analysing the different MSS. on this word
in the foregoing two passages the following facts
are disclosed: (1) Orient. 4227, which has Dagesh
in the Samech in Gen. XL VI 29, has no Dagesh in
Exod. XIV 6; (2) Harley 5710 — 11, which has no
Dagesh in Gen. XLVI 29, but which has Dagesh
in the text in Exod. XIV 6, is corrected in the
Massorah Parva with the remark ">*\p2 °D*1 'J, i. e.
in three instances it is Raphe in the Bible which either
means that it is one of the three passages where
it is IDJ^l with Chateph-segol or lOWl with Sheva
under the Aleph and without Dagesh in the Samech;
and (3) Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; and
Orient. 2365, which have the following Massorah
against it S]^K jTDtt *6 WnPI 'Wb bl, show beyond
doubt that the Massorah on this word, whether it
is tP^H or ^D% refers to the Aleph and not to the
Samech.
III. Levit. XX 4.

TPty nbVn with Dagesh, Add. 9401, Add. 15451.

lQ^IT obpn without Dagesh, Orient. 4445; Orient. 2201;
Harley 5710 — 11; Harley 1528; Add. 21 160; Add.
1 525 1 ; Add. 15252; Orient. 4227; Orient. 2348; Orient.
2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451 ; Orient.
2626 — 28; the first edition of the Pentateuch,

132 Introduction. [CHAP.I.

Bologna 1482; the first edition of the Bible, Soncino
1488; the Lisbon Pentateuch 1491; the second and
third editions of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93, Brescia
1494; the Complutensian Polyglot; the first Rabbinic
Bible by Felix Pratentis 15 1 7 ; the quarto Bible,
Venice 1521; and the first edition of the Bible
with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25.
Wby*1 O^Vn with Chateph-pathach under the Ayin is
the reading in Arund. Orient. 2, which is dated
A. D. 1 2 16, and Add. 15250.

IV. Psalm X 1.

D^JJfi with Dagesh, Add. 15451; the first and third
editions of the Bible, Soncino 1488, Brescia 1494.

Wbyn without Dagesh, Orient. 2201; Arund. Orient. 16;
Harley 5710 — 11; Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add.
1 5251; Add. 15252; Orient. 2091; Orient. 2626 — 28;
Orient. 2212; the first edition of the Hagiographa,
Naples i486 — 87; the second edition of the Bible,
Naples 1 49 1 — 93 ; the fourth edition, Pesaro 1 5 1 1 — 17 ;
the Psalms, Proverbs &c, Salonica 15 15; the
Complutensian Polyglot; the first Rabbinic Bible
by Felix Pratensis 15 17; the quarto Bible, Venice
1 521; and the first edition of the Bible with the
Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. D^JJfi
wTith Chateph-pathach under the Ay in, is the reading
in Orient. 4227.

V. Psalm XXXIV 1.

IBPtt with Dagesh, Add. 15451.

IftPft without Dagesh, Orient. 2201; Arund. Orient. 16;
Harley 5710 — 11; Harley 1528; Orient. 2091; Add.
15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Orient. 2212; Orient.
2626 — 28; the first edition of the Hagiographa,
Naples i486 — 87; the Psalms, Proverbs &cv Salonica
15 15; the Complutensian Polyglot; the first edition

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 133

of the Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 151 7;
the quarto Bible, Venice 1521; and the first edition
of the Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim
1524—25. laPft with Chateph-patkach under the
Ayin is the reading in Orient. 4227; the first, second,
third and fourth editions of the Bible, Soncino
1488, Naples 1491—93, Brescia 1494, and Pesaro
1511 — 17.
VI. Psalm LXI 4.

nSTO with Dagesh, Add. 15451.

npTO without Dagesh, Orient. 2201; Harley 5710 — 11;
Harley 1528; Orient. 2091; Add. 15250; Add. 15251;
Add. 15252; Orient. 2212; Orient. 2626 — 28; the
first edition of the Hagiographa, Naples i486 — 87;
the first edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488; the
second edition, Naples 1491 — 93; the third edition,
Brescia 1494; the fourth edition, Pesaro 151 1 — 17;
the Psalms, Proverbs &c, Salonica 15 15; the
Complutensian Polyglot; the first edition of the
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 15 17; the quarto
Bible, Venice 1521; and the first edition of the
Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim
1524 — 25. The reading HDTO with Chateph-pathach
under the Cheth is that of Arund. Orient. 16 and
Orient. 4227. The former has the Massorah against
it 'tP^H o01 'Jl eight times with Chateph-pathach in
this form. I have, therefore, adopted it in my
edition.
VII. Psalm CV 22.

IDX4? with Dagesh, Add. 15451; Orient. 2091.

IDX^ without Dagesh, Orient. 2201; Arund. Orient. 16;
Harley 5710 — 11; Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add.
1 525 1 ; Add. 15252; Orient. 4227; Orient. 2212; Orient.
2626 — 28; the first, second, third and fourth editions

134 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

of the Bible, Soncino 1488, Naples 1491 — 93, Brescia
1494, Pesaro 151 1 — 17; the Psalms, Proverbs &c,
Salonica 15 15; the Complutensian Polyglot; the first
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 15 17; the quarto
Bible, Venice 1521; and the first edition of the
Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim
1524 — 25. The reading *1DN^ with Chateph-segol is
exhibited in the first edition of the Hagiographa,
Naples 1486—87.
VIII. Psalm CIX 29.
lEJ?n with Dagesh.

IffiJ^l with Chateph-pathach, Orient. 2201; Arund.

Orient. 16; Harley 5710 — 11; Harley 1528; Add.

21161; Add. 1-545 1; Add. 15250; Add. 15251;

Add. 15252; Orient. 4227; Orient. 2091; Orient.

2212; Orient. 2626 — 28; the first edition of the

Hagiographa, Naples i486 — 87; the first, second

and third editions of the Bible, Soncino 1488,

Naples 1 49 1 — 93, and Brescia 1494; the Psalms,

Proverbs &c, Salonica 15 15; the Complutensian

Polyglot; the edition of the Rabbinic Bible by

Felix Pratensis 151 7; the quarto Bible, Venice 152 1 ;

and the first edition of the Bible with the Massorah

by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25.

These are the instances adduced by Heidenheim and

Delitzsch to establish their rule that the consonant which

follows a gutteral with Sheva is invariably with Dagesh.

The passages in which n£tf*1 occurs marked No. I, I have

already analysed. Though No. II has the support of three

MSS., the most ancient and by far the larger number are

against this eccentric Dagesh. Amongst these are Standard

Codices of exceptional accuracy. Moreover all the early

editions, which Delitzsch himself describes as having the

same value as MSS., are against its presence. Equally so is

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 135

No. Ill which is exhibited in two MSS., but which is
opposed to the oldest and Standard Codices as well as
to all the early editions. No. IV, which is found in only
one MS., is supported by two editions, but is against the
large majority of Codices and early editions. Nos. V and VI
have only one MS. in their favour and no early edition at all.
No. VII, which is supported by two MSS., has not only
all the Standard Codices against it, but all the early
editions, whilst No. VIII is a false reading, since I could
not find it in any MS. or early edition.

Levita's explanation, therefore, of the Massoretic use
of the terms Dag'esh and Raphe is fully borne out by the
larger number of MSS., amongst which are the oldest and
Standard Codices. Hence, Delitzsch's declaration, that the
Dagesh in the consonant after a gutteral with Sheva is to
be found in all the best MSS., is based upon wrong
information for which, as the article in question shows,
Dr. Baer is responsible. To introduce, therefore, this
eccentric Dagesh throughout the Hebrew Bible, as has
been done by Dr. Baer, is a most unjustifiable innovation.
The only thing which can legitimately be done with the
evidence of the MSS. and early editions before us, is to
mention the fact that some mediaeval purists have inserted
it in several places.

Far less objectionable is the third category of words
in behalf of which Delitzsch in the same article pleads for
the Dagesh and into which Dr. Baer has actually inserted
it throughout the Bible in accordance with the rule laid
down by Ben Balaam and Moses the Nakdan that when
the two labials Beth Mem (M) follow each other at the
beginning of a word the Beth, when it has Sheva, has Dagesh
though it is preceded by one of the vowel-letters JO/V.
And though Joseph Kimchi who, in expanding this rule,
enforced it by the solemn declaration that whoso reads

136 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

^p$3 (Gen. XXXII n) Raphe, has not the spirit of the
true grammarian in him/ yet the grammarian Heidenheim
deliberately points it so in his edition of the Pentateuch
where he himself first called attention to this rule. Dr. Baer
who, as a rule, follows Heidenheim most slavishly, has
indeed in this instance departed from his great exemplar,
reverted to the statement of Kimchi and accordingly
points it ^p£2 with Dagesh. This, however, is against the
celebrated Codex Hilali and against numerous Codices as
well as against all the early editions, as will be seen from
the following enumeration: Orient. 4445; Orient. 2201 ;
Harley 2201; Add. 1525 1 ; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349;
Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; and Orient. 2626 — 28. In all
these MSS. the Beth has the Raphe stroke over it (§) so
that there can be no mistake about it. It is also Raphe in
the first edition of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482; in the
first edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488; in the second
edition, Naples 1491 — 93; in the third edition, Brescia 1494;
the Complutensian Polyglot; the first edition of the
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 15 17; the quarto Bible,
Venice 1521; and the first edition of the Bible with the
Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25.

The other instances which come under this rule and
which Dr. Baer has invariably dageshed are treated in a
similar manner in the MSS. and early editions. As I have,
however, generally indicated the variations in their proper
places, it is not necessary to discuss them here.

(Gen.xxxmi) ^p&a "3 1&2 mm rran era rmnm rva n:itwnn dk >
rrtfii nH,n ■mro Aiwn rm e^pipwi \rvbn ^rn m-i px man nniK *mpm
:Dis*6&b nantw bm sy&a nrmx vsb ninw i"i rrrin xb obirbi n mark nan

♦ p*ti?n "1£D Comp. Dr. Baer, Appendix to the Psalms, p. 92.

Chap. II.
The Orthography.

Without going the full length of those who maintain
that the Hebrew Codex, from which the Septuagint was made,
had no matres lectiones at all,1 it is now established beyond
a doubt that the letters ^HX commonly called quiescent
or feeble letters, have been gradually introduced into the
Hebrew text.2 It is, moreover, perfectly certain that the
presence or absence of these letters in our text in many
instances is entirely due to the idiosyncrasy of the Scribes.

This is by no means the result of modern philology.
Jehudah Chayug, who flourished circa A. D. 1 010 — 1040 and
who is described as the founder of Hebrew Grammar, already
states that the insertion, or omission of the matres lectiones
has always been left to the discretion of the scribes, and
that this practice still obtained in his days.3

Still more emphatic is the declaration of Ibn Ezra
(1093 — 1 167). He assures us that the choice of plenes and
defectives was entirely left to the judgment of individual
copyists, that some scribes wrote certain words plene

1 Comp. Lagarde: Anmerkungen zur griechischcn Uebersetzung dcr
Proverbicn, p. 4, Leipzig 1863.

2 Comp. Chwolson: Die Quiescentes "'l.l in dcr althebrdischcn Ortho-
graphic in the third International Congress of Orientalists, Vol. II, pp. 459,
474 and 478, St. Petersburg 1876.

3 Comp. Jehudah Chayug's Grammatical works edited by Leopold Dukes
in the Beitrdge zur Gcschichtc dcr Aeltestcn Auslcgung und Spracherkldrung
dcs Alien Tcstamcntcs von Ewald und Dukes, Vol. Ill, p. 22, Stuttgart 1844.

138 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

when in their opinion the text ought to be made a little
clearer, and that others wrote the same words defective
when they wanted to economise space. His words are as
follows:

The sages of the Massorah evolved from their inner consciousness
reasons why some words are plene and some defective which, however, only
serves to satisfy the ignorant who seek reasons for the plenes and defectives.
Behold the scribe could not do otherwise than write plene when he wanted
to preclude the word from being mistaken for its homonym as for instance
cbty, i or defective when he wanted to be shorter.2

The following examples will suffice to illustrate this fact.

X. — The Massorah itself has catalogued various Lists
of words in which Aleph is still wanting. From these Lists,
which I have printed in the Massorah3 I extract a few
instances exhibiting words in their original form.

T)¥ft "I have found" (Numb. XI n) the only instance
of the preterite first person which has survived without
Aleph. In all the other 39 passages in which it occurs this
radical letter has uniformly been inserted.

^tyi*1 "I came out" (Job I 21) which has not only Aleph
inserted in the only other place where it occurs in this
very book (Job III 11), but also in all the other five
instances where it is to be found in the Hebrew Bible.4

>r6tt "I am full" (Job XXXII 18) which has Aleph
inserted in the other two instances where it occurs (Jerem.
VI 11; Micah III 8).

1 That is ub*\V is plene and not thy defective which might be
mistaken for nbv ,0^2 >nby or ubv = D^P.

^d xbtib D-mta nm /ncnbi "k^e^ traya nn^a ik-d mean 7221T, 2

pn wnsb naian ns p* rwi ,-idi-6i *6ab dpb ffwpab tsw '^hk ■•a ,ib ^cn

m~\xp -j-n nn*6 -en aire ix ,nbw iaa rtean mynn vbv nxab nan dk *6a

:'T f\1 mVTS nBtr editio Lippmann, Fiirth 1839.

3Comp. The Massorah, letter X, §§ 14 — 18, Vol. I, pp. 9 — 12.

4 Comp. Numb. XXII 32; Jerem. XIV 18; XX 18; Prov. VII 15;
Dan. IX 22.

CHAP. II.J The Orthography. 139

tnril "and she laid hold" (2 Sam. XX 9) in which the
Aleph has been inserted in the only other passage where
this form is to be found (Ruth III 15).

Ipbp "thy petition" (1 Sam. I 17). Here too the Aleph
has been introduced in the other three places where this
form occurs (Esther V 6; VII 2; IX 12).

Still more striking is the case where the same phrase
occurs twice in the same book, once exhibiting the primitive
form without Aleph, and once with Aleph inserted.

Thus for instance Gen. XXV 24 "and behold Dftifi
twins in her womb" without Aleph, and Gen. XXXVIII 27
"and behold D*QlNJl twins in her womb" with Aleph.

Jeremiah VIII 1 1 "and they have healed 1ST] the
hurt" without Aleph at the end of the word, and Jeremiah
VI 14 "and they have healed 1NST1 the hurt" with Aleph
at the end of the word.

David's Hymn of Triumph which is recorded in
duplicate, once in 2 Sam. XXII and once in Psalm XVIII,
affords a striking illustration of this fact. In the former the
phrase "for thou hast girded me" ^*Wn with strength for
the battle" (2 Sam. XXII 40) exhibits the primitive form
without Aleph, whilst in the latter "for thou hast girded me
'rKKni with strength for the battle" (Ps. XVIII 40) there
is already the insertion of the Aleph.

In the list of David's heroes, of which we have also a
duplicate, one in 2 Samuel XXIII, and one in Chronicles XI,
Xahari the Beerothite is mentioned. In the one place it is
'rfljfl the Berothite without Aleph (1 Chron. XI 39), whilst
in other it is 'JflKan the Berothite (2 Sam. XXIII 37) with
Aleph already inserted.

The examples of the absence of Aleph which are duly
noticed by the Massorah are of a still more instructive
character when we consider the following instances:

140 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

T3H in Gen. XXX 1 1 is according to the Massorah
*TJ 3 = "[J N3 a troop cometh. It will be seen that not only
are the two words written continuously, but that in separating
them Aleph has to be inserted by the direction of the Massorah.

The same is the case according to the testimony of
the Massorites in Jeremiah XVIII 3 where IflJiT) is separated
into two words, i. e. *iT\ l\X\ [= WH PlJJfn] and behold he and
where He is omitted in the first word, and Aleph in the
second. The Massorah itself records that whilst the Aleph
was being inserted by one School of Massorites, another
School adhered in some instances to the more primitive
orthography.

Thus, for instance in Jerem. XXIX 22 the Western
School read DflXD1) = SriiO} and like Ahab retaining the
ancient mode of spelling-, whilst the Eastern School have
this form only in the Kethiv and inserted the second
Aleph in the Keri, viz. aXflNp5).

The same is the case in Psalm CXXXIX 20 where
the Westerns read THO1 without Aleph, and the Easterns
read ^llOir with Aleph.

These typical illustrations suffice to show that the
primitive forms have not all been superseded by the
fuller mode of spelling.

Many other instances of the absence of Aleph occur
throughout the text which have partially been obscured
by the Punctuators, who, by not recognising this fact have
so pointed the words in question as to assign them to
different roots. By a careful use of the ancient Versions,
however, which were made prior to the introduction of
the vowel-signs we are not unfrequently able to ascertain
the primitive orthography, as will be seen from the following
illustrations :

In Gen. IV 15 the text from which the Septuagint
was made had p*? (without Aleph) = p Sib "not so" and this

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 1 4 1

reading is supported by the context. Cain tells God in the
preceding verse that as a fugitive his life was in danger,
and that any one who chances to meet him will slay
him. Hereupon the Lord assures him in the verse before
us that this shall not be the case. Accordingly the correct
reading of the verse is: "And the Lord said unto him, it
shall not be so (p K*?) whosoever &c."

In 2 Kings VII 17 we have the primitive form
"(ton = "sl^n = "^V^rt "the messenger' without Aleph as is
attested by the Septuagint and the Syriac. The passage
ought accordingly to be translated "when the messenger came
down to him". This is corroborated by the statement in the
preceding chapter, viz. VI 33 Exactly the reverse is the case
in 2 Sam. XI 1 where the Massorah itself tells us that the
redactors of the text inserted Aleph into this very word,
converting (D^ftH) "kings" into (D*?N^8n) "messengers".

Ps. XXXIII 7 the Septuagint translates "He gathered
the waters of the sea together as in a bottle1'' *D3 — 133 = *7X33.
This form, which occurs in Ps. CXIX 83 with Aleph, was
manifestly written here without Aleph, but was originally
pronounced in the same way, as is also attested by the
Chaldee and the Syriac as well as by the parallelism. The
Massorites, however, who supposed that there is a reference
here to the passage of the Red Sea (Exod. XV 8) pointed
it 125 and thus obscured its etymology.

According to the testimony of the Septuagint and the
Syriac, yw^ in Proverbs III 8 ought to be pointed
Tltf^ = TpNttt^ and the word in question exhibits the
primitive form without the Aleph. The passage, therefore,
ought to be translated:

"It shall be health to thy body
And marrow to thy bones."

This reading which restores the parallelism is now
adopted by most critics.

142 Introduction. [CHAP. II

In the process of supplying the Aleph, however, the
redactors of the text have not unfrequently inserted it
where the Massorites themselves tell us, it is superfluous.
Hence the Massorah has preserved different Lists of sundry
expressions, in which, by the direcion of the Massorites the
Aleph is to be cancelled.1

Thus for instance they state that pSpn which occurs
twice in Exodus, viz. V 7 and IX 28 has in the first
passage a superfluous Aleph, and this is corroborated by the
fact that in the only other two places where this form
occurs (Gen. XLIV 23; Deut. XVII 16) it has no Aleph.

The same is the case in 2 Sam. XI 24 DWiQil WT1
"and the shooters shot" where the Aleph, according to the
Massorah, has superfluously been inserted in both words, and
this is confirmed by a reference to 2 Chronicles XXXV 2^
where this phrase occurs again without the Aleph.

These again must be taken as simply typical instances.
Other examples may easily be gathered from the ancient
Versions of which the following is a striking illustration,
where Aleph has been inserted in 11¥D rock making it IMlp
neck Ps. LXXV 6. The Septuagint exhibits the primitive
form without the Aleph and the passage ought accordingly
to be translated:

"Do not exalt your horn toward heaven
Nor speak arrogantly of the Rock."
X and V. — The same vicissitudes to which the feeble
Aleph was subject, are also traceable in the soft Ay in. Very
frequently it was not expressed in the primitive forms. This
orthography is still exhibited in the name b$ Bel — bV'Z,
Baal which has survived in three instances (Isa. XL VI 1 ;
Jerem. L 2; LI 44) apart from compound proper names,
and in the particle of entreaty >2 = 'J?3 I pray, Of The

1 Cornp. The Massorah, letter K, §§ 17, 18, Vol.1, pp. II, 12.

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 143

Massorah itself tells us that nptPT) (Amos VIII 8) stands

for nrpefru

According to the testimony ol the ancient Versions
IBfo, in Ps. XXVIII 8, is the primitive form of forfr, "to
His people". This is attested by the Septuagint, the Syriac
and the Vulgate as well as by several MSS., and the parallel
passage in Ps. XXIX n. Accordingly the verse is to be
translated:

"Jehovah is strength to His people

And He is the saving strength to His anointed."

And it is now admitted by the best critics that 132 in
Micah I io stands for 133 = 13U3 the maritime city in the
territory of Asher (Comp. Judg. I 31). Accordingly Micah
I 10 reads:

"Declare it not at Gath

Weep not at Accho

In the house of Aphrah roll thyself in the dust."

This explains the otherwise inexplicable passage in
Rosea VII 6. Here |E^ simply exhibits the primitive
orthography, |#J = \VV], and DHDX is to be pointed DPIDX
as is attested by the Chaldee and the Syriac. Accordingly the
passage is to be translated:

"their anger smoketh all night." l

This not only relieves the verse, but agrees with the
context and parallelism.

Owing to their similarity in pronunciation and most
probably also to the similarity of their form in ancient
times 2 the redactors of the text, in supplying these two

Comp. Deut. XXIX 19 and W. Robertson Smith in the Journal of
Philology. Vol. XVI, p. 72, London and Cambridge 1888.

2 That the X and J? like the 2 and 'D the 1 and ^ &c. must have been
similar in form in olden times is evident form the following caution given in
the Talmud to the Scribes pM "£2 pn*S fsh* )W pri? pB^K SW tibv
* '121 JTT2 Comp. Sabbath 103 b.

144 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

letters, have not unfrequently interchanged them. Hence
we have bVtt to he rejected as polluted with Ayin in
2 Sam. 1 21, and btttt with Aleph in Zeph. Ill i.

Dtfna despised with Ayin Isa. XLIX 7, and SNilft with
Aleph Amos VI 8.

In Ps. LXXVI 8 it is -[>DK ?K = sV the power of thine
anger, and Ps. XC 1 1 -pDX ?i>.

Hosea VII 6 D3lfcO is now regarded by some of the
best critics to stand for D3 *\Vh, whilst tfnn Ps. XXXV 15
is taken for Wljj '7/^_y ^ o»/". Professor Cheyne, who
adopts this renderings did not even deem it necessary
to notice the fact that it is with Ayin in the Massoretic text,
and that without this interchange of letters it denotes to
rend asunder. The Massorah has preserved sundry Lists of
words in which Aleph stands for Ayin and vice versa. 1

n. — The greatest peculiarities exhibited in the ortho-
graphy of the Hebrew text are connected with the letter
He. The Massorah catalogues a number of Lists of words
which ought to have He at the beginning; and vice versa, of
words which have a superfluous He, and which, according
to the Massorah ought to be cancelled;2 words which want
He in the middle, and vice versa, words which have a super-
fluous He in the middle, :3 as well as of words which have
a superfluous He at the end, and which the Massorites
condemn.4

Of great orthographical and lexical importance, more-
over, are the Lists containing sundry words throughout
the Hebrew Scriptures, in which this letter is interchanged

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter K, § 514, Vol. I, p. 57; letter 1?, §§ 352,
360 &c; Vol. II, p. 390.

2 Comp. The Massorah, letter ,"1, § 9. Vol. I, p. 256.

3 The Massorah, letter H, §§ 26 — 28, Vol. I, pp. 268, 269.

4 The Massorah, letter H, §§ 33, 34, Vol. I, pp. 269, 270.

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 145

with the letter Alepli, and with the letter Vav, and vice
versa. '

These Massoretic Lists, however important as they
assuredly are, by no means exhaust all the passages. They
simply exhibit typical examples which may easily be
multiplied from the ancient Versions. Without attempting
to analyse the import of all the passages tabulated by the
Massorites, I will point out the influence which the intro-
duction of the He into the text has exercised both upon
the orthography and the sense by adducing a few illu-
strations.

I shall quote first a few passages from the parallel
records of the same event, narrated both in 2 Samuel V 9,
VII 9 and 1 Chronicles XI 7, XVII 8 inasmuch as there
can be no room for doubt here about the diversity of
orthography in identically the same phrases, recording
identically the same occurrence.

In 2 Sam. V 9 it is, "and David dwelt rn¥M in the
castle and he called her2 the city of David": whereas in
1 Chron. XI 7 it is, "and David dwelt "l¥£3 in the castle;
therefore they called him3 the city of David." There can,
therefore, be no doubt that the primitive form was
"I¥M = rn^iQll the feminine. The redactor of Samuel who
inserted the He, in accordance with the later mode of
spelling, pointed it n*TV£5 feminine, whilst the redactor of
Chronicles retained the primitive form without the He, and
hence pointed it *"!¥£?> which is masculine. It will be seen that
this diversity of orthography necessitated also a change in
the gender of the pronominal suffix, third person singular.
This was more easily effected since it required no alteration

1 The Massorah, letter K, §§ 35, 47, 49, Vol I, pp. 270, 272, 273.

2 T\b i. e. the castle, which is feminine.

:! Here the castle is in the masculine and hence *h. the masculine suffix.

146 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

in the letters, inasmuch as according to the ancient ortho-
graphy the He stood also for the suffix, third person mas-
culine. It was necessary only to pronounce it ph in the
one case, and T\h in the other.

In 2 Samuel VII 9 it is "and I have cast off (nmDXI)
all thine enemies", whereas in the parallel passage
1 Chronicles XVII 8, where the same event is recorded,
it is "and I have cut off (JVpKl) all thine enemies". This
diversity of spelling is manifestly due to the fact that in
the primitive text it was simply £1*13X1, which the redactor
of Samuel resolved into nfi*"pJO by adding He at the end,
whilst the redactor of Chronicles, demurring to this
unique form, resolved it into £1**0X1 by inserting Yod in the
middle, thus making it conformable to the other three
instances where this Hiphil future first person singular
occurs.1

The absence of He in the primitive text explains a
variation in the present text which affects the translation.

In 2 Sam. XXIV 13 it is "or wilt thou flee (*]D3) three
months before thine enemies?", whereas in 1 Chron. XXI 12
it is "or wilt thou he destroyed (H?P?) three months before
thine enemies". Originally the text was in both passages "TD3,
without He, which was afterward introduced into Chronicles
by the redactor. It was a copyist, who at a later period
mistook 3 for D, as is evident from the Septuagint and
the Vulgate which still have 7[Dj.

In Jeremiah XXIII 5 it is "I will raise unto David
(p^V n£¥) ci righteous branch", whereas in the parallel
passage in the same book, it is "I will cause to grow
up unto David (HiTJV n&¥) the branch of righteousness"
(XXXIII 15). The diversity in identically the same phrase, is
however easily explained. The text originally had simply p*T¥

! Comp. I Sam. II 33; Nahum I 14; Zech. XIII 2.

CHAP. II.J The Orthography. 147

in both passages which the redactors of Jeremiah resolved,
in one place into p7£ = HD13C, and in the other into
p^T¥ = p,<rltf. In the one case they appended He (n), in
accordance with the later mode of spelling, and in the
other they inserted Yod (*) in the middle of the word, just
as they introduced the same letter into the middle of the
word in i Chron. XVII 8.

The Massorah registers instances where the He is
omitted at the end of the word, in the preterite third
person feminine. It states, for example, that in Gen. XIX 23,
Jerem. XLVIII 45, and Dan. VIII 9 KIT stands for
^> = nMC*.1 But here again the passages must simply be
regarded as typical, since according to the testimony of
the ancient Versions other instances still existed where
this primitive orthography obtained, which are not
recognised by the Massorah. Another instance where KIT
stands for X2P = nX2C* is 2 Sam. XX 8 which according
to the testimony of the Septuagint ought to be read
^Qm nX2P Nim "and it (i. e. the sword) came out and fell".

That in Gen. XXIX 34 Kip stood for |pj5 = HK1J5
"she called' is evident from the Samaritan and the Septuagint.

It is equally certain from the Samaritan, the Septuagint
and the Syriac that lf?i in Gen. XL VI 22 was read i^ =
\T\b\ "she bore".

The He was even omitted at the end when it was
suffix third person singular feminine, e. g. tf*K —ftttf'K "her
husband" 2 Sam. Ill 15 as is attested by the Septuagint,
the Chaldee, the Syriac and the Vulgate, and is accepted
by the best critics.

I have already adverted to the fact that the suffix
third person singular masculine was written with He in the
primitive text instead of Vav, and that the Massorah itself

1 Corap. The Massorah, letter >, § 472, Vol. I, p. 731.

148 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

gives a List of words which have not been made conform-
able to the later orthography. In all these instances the
Massorah carefully directs that the words in question are
to be read with Vav instead of He.1 There was, however, a
difference of opinion in some of the Schools whether the
He in certain words expressed the suffix third person
singular feminine or masculine. A notable instance of it
we have in HD^jD Levit. I 16. The School of Massorites
which our recensions exhibit, resolved it into fifl¥!l3;
whereas the School of textual critics exhibited in the
Samaritan and Septuagint read it nr)¥32}.

X — Far more arbitrary is the presence or absence of
the letter Vav as a vowel-sign in the middle of the word.
Even at the end of a verb the \ which according to the
present orthography is uniformly used in the preterite
third person plural and the future third person masculine
plural, was not unfrequently absent in the primitive forms.
This is attested by the Massorah which gives a List of
preterites third person plural, and futures third person
masculine plural without Vav at the end2 and has given
rise to various readings. When the letter in question was
being gradually introduced into the text, a difference of
opinion obtained in the ancient Schools, whether certain
forms were singular or plural. A striking illustration of
this fact is to be seen in the duplicate Psalm, viz. XIV
and LIII. In the former the concluding verse is "Oh that
from Zion were come (flEW"') the salvation of Israel",
whereas in the duplicate it is "Oh that from Zion were
come (nlpt^) the salvations of Israel". It will be seen that in
the one the noun is in the singular, whereas in the other
the Vav is inserted to make it plural. That this, however,

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter H, §§ 47, 48, Vol. I, pp. 272, 273.

2 Comp. The Massorah, letter 1, § 146, Vol. I, p 422.

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 14!)

was the opinion of one School, and that another School
read it in the singular in both places is evident from
many MSS. as well as from the Septuagint and the Syriac.

In David's Hymn of Triumph of which there is a
duplicate, viz. 2 Sam. XXII and Ps. XVIII, we have
another striking illustration of the difference which obtained
in the Schools as to whether the Vav is to be inserted
or not. This difference which is not observed in the Autho-
rised Version, is exhibited in verse 26. In 2 Sam. XXII 26
it is "with (O^n *fi35) the upright hero, thou wilt shew
thyself upright", whereas in the parallel passage in
Ps. XVIII 26 it is "with (DWl *U5) the upright man
thou wilt shew thyself upright". The primitive ortho-
graphy was in both passages *U3, without the Vav, but
the redactors of Samuel read it 12% hero, and hence inserted
the Vav to indicate this reading, whilst the redactors of
the Psalter read it *Qj| man of, and hence declined to
insert the Vav.

I shall now give a few typical examples of the
absence of the Vav at the end, in plural verbs, according
to the testimony of the ancient Versions, though not
recognised by the Massorah. Both in Gen. XXXV 26 and
XL VI 27 I4?' stands for 1^ = VT^ were horn the plural.
This is the reading of several MSS., the Samaritan and
the Septuagint, and in the former passage also of Onkelos,
Jonathan, the Syriac and the Authorised Version and is
undoubtedly the correct reading.

In Exod. XVIII 16 X3 stands for N| = W| they come.
This is attested by the Septuagint and is adopted in the
Authorised Version.

In Numb. XXXIII 7 ntP'l is nttfj} = totfjl and tiny
turned again as is evident from the Samaritan and the
context and is rightly exhibited in the Authorised
Version.

150 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

Whilst in Deut. XXXII 38 W is VT = V«T /rf them
be, as is attested by Onkelos, the Samaritan, the Septuagint,
the Syriac, and the Vulgate. This is also exhibited in the
Authorised Version.

\ — The same want of uniformity is exhibited in the
present text with regard to the presence or absence of
the letter Yod, as a vowel sign, for Chirek and Tzere in
identically the same forms, thus showing that originally it
was absent altogether, and that its insertion was gradual.
The Massorah itself testifies to this fact inasmuch as it
catalogues Lists of words in which the Yod has not been
inserted after Chirek.1 Here again the Massorah must be
regarded as simply giving typical instances. The parallel
passages in the Massoretic text itself furnish far more
striking examples.

Thus for instance in Josh. XXI, where the cities of
refuge are described, it is in verse 15 nt^UttTlXl ibh Dtfl
"and Holon with her suburbs", whereas in 1 Chron. VI 43,
where we have identically the same description it is "DN1
nEnjft-nxi [^n "and Hilen with her suburbs". It is evident
that originally the text had simply fin, which was pro-
nounced in some Schools fih Cholon, and in other Schools
fip, Chilen, and to mark this pronunciation, the latter
inserted the Yod. This very description also furnishes an
illustration of the gradual introduction of the Yod in
plural nouns with the suffix third person singular feminine.
With the exception of Josh. XXI 13, 40 nth}? her suburbs
is without the Yod in all the forty-three times in this chapter;
whereas in the parallel description in 1 Chron. VI 40 — 66
it is without exception (TEhjB with Yod in all the forty-
one instances. This primitive orthography has given rise
to differences of opinion with regard to the import of

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter », §§ 17 — 19, Vol. I, p. 678.

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 151

certain nouns, as is evident from nrnD in Numb. VIII 4.
The School of Massorites which has been followed by the
redactors of our text regarded it as a singular with the
suffix third person singular feminine and hence pointed it
FHT1B her flower. But the School which is represented by
the Samaritan and the Septuagint took it as a plural, i. e.
nrPS = iTrnS her flowers, and this is now accepted as the
perferable reading by some of the best critics.

In 1 Kings XXII 35 it is "and the king was n»P»)
stayed up in his chariot'', whereas in the parallel passage
in 2 Chron. XVIII 34 which gives identically the same
description, it is "and the king of Israel (T{J?0) stayed
himself up in his chariot". Originally the text in both
passages had IftVfi, which the redactors of Kings pro-
nounced Tfil?£; whilst the redactors of Chronicles pronounced
it T2P£. To mark this difference in the pronunciation, the
latter School of Massorites introduced the Yod.

In Jeremiah VI 15 it is "neither could they X^ D^^H
1JTP blush", whereas in the parallel passage in VIII 12,
where the same phrase occurs, it is IVT1 $b D^SiTI. Originally
both passages read D^2i"I, which one School pronounced
D^DH and the other D/3H, and marked the difference by
inserting the Yod.

A noticeable instance where the absence of Yod in the
primitive text has given rise to a difference of interpre-
tation is to be found in Exod. XXXV 21, 22. In both
these verses, which begin with *IN3,*I, the redactors of the
present text regarded it as the Kal and hence pointed it
toi'1 "and they came".

It is, however, evident from the Samaritan and the
Septuagint that in the School which these ancient autho-
rities followed, it was regarded as the Hiphil, i. e. W2J1
"and they brought", a reading which is now accepted by
some of the best critics especially as this identical form

152 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

without the Yod has still survived in no fewer than thirteen
instances.1

In the plural termination for the masculine gender
which is now D' t the Yod was originally not expressed.
The primitive orthography has still survived in a consi-
derable number of words especially in the Pentateuch.
Apart from the forms which occur only once 2 I adduce
the following words which have retained the original
spelling in one instance and which are to be found in
other passages with the Yod inserted: D"pP1 menservants
(Gen. XXIV 35), DttiD twins (XXV 24), Djnfr branches
(XL 10), Uteb lice (Exod. VIII 12), Dttfattfi and captains
(XIV 7), tibxz among the gods (XV 11), DTS^H the light-
nings (XX 1 8), D£$h doubled (XXVI 24), DKfrfCH and the
rulers (XXXV 27), DiniSil that were left (Levit. X 16),
nyVfb unto the he goats or satyrs (XVII 7), Diinrn 0wd
those that pitch (Numb. II 12), DD»n the days (VI 5), DJVflt^!
a^d as thorns (XXXIII 55).

That these simply exhibit the instances which have
escaped the process of uniformity, is evident from the
ancient Versions. These Versions not only shew that there
were many other passages in which the Yod was originally
absent, but that a difference of opinion obtained in the
Schools as to whether the Mem in certain cases denoted the
plural, or the suffix third person plural masculine. It is
evident that in Jerem. VI 15 it was originally D^Dj3, which
one School read D^Sil "among them that fall" and hence,
to mark this reading inserted the Yod, i. e. D^0i3, whilst

1 Comp. Numbers XXX 12, 54; Judg. XXI 12; 1 Sam. I 25; V 2;
VII 1 ; 2 Sam. IV 8; VI 17; XXIII 16; I Kings I 3; VIII 6; IX 28;
1 Chron. I 18. Comp. The Massorah, letter a, § 181, Vol. I, p. 175.

2 Dia'TJ? naked (Gen. Ill 7), DtTltsSl D"^PX Asluiriin and Lehishim
(XXV 3), QB£! hoi springs (XXXVI 24), EO'Hpa they offer (Levit. XXI 6),
OrfcKfc D23"K ye did not believe (Deut. I 32) DTrt'r small rain (XXXII 2).

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 153

another School read it ubpj2 and rendered it they shall utterly
fall when they do fall, so the Septuagint. The same is the
case in verse 29 of this very chapter. Here the original
spelling was Dim, which one School read DtfTl and, therefore,
inserted the Yod, and another School read it D1H1. Hence
the rendering of the Septuagint 71ovi]qlcc avrcjv ovx hccKi]
thai- wickedness has not melted away or consumed —

^nj *6 Dim

In Jer. XVII 25 the primitive text had DD1D31, which
some resolved into DD1D31 and on horses and marked their
reading* by introducing the Yod, whilst others, as is evident
from the Septuagint, xal Initoig avtcbv, read it DDIDDI
and on their horses.

So too in Ezek. VII 24, the original spelling was
manifestly Q*J? which some read U1V the strong, and
afterwards fixed this reading by inserting the Yod, while
others read it 01V their strength. This is followed by the
Septuagint which renders it to cpQvay^ia xf\g ioyyog ocvtmv
the boasting of their strength = 01V pfcO and this is the phrase
which is to be found in XXIV 21.

According to the same testimony Ps. LVIII 12 had
originally DEDt£, which was pronounced DEBtP, i. e. God is
judge by one School, and by another School DBDttf their
judge, Septuagint 6 dsbg xqivov avzovg God that judgeth them,
winch is now accepted by some critics as the correct reading.

The most striking illustration, however, of the absence
ot the Yod plural in the primitive text is to be found in
Job XIX 18 where >3 HDXO D^l? is rendered by the
Septuagint elg xhv ai&va pe d7t87toi?j6avzo — ^ IDXft ob")V for
ever they rejected me", thus showing that the text from
which this version was made, had simply oh^V, which
one School resolved into Ob*\V young children and fixed
this pronunciation by the insertion of the two Yods, whilst
the other School read it ob'W ever.

154 Introduction. [CHAP. II

The same was the case with the Yod at the end of
words denoting the plural construct. According to the
Eastern School ofMassorites 2W> in Judg. I 21 stands for
2pf = >3£?> f]te inhabitants of whilst the Westerns read it
Sp*1 flic inhabitant of in the singular.

Both the Eastern and Western Schools of Massorites
agree that T in 2 Kings XII 12 stands for T = V"P the
hands of the plural, whilst theMassorah on 2 Kings XVII 31
remarks that r6tf stands for ri^jtf = \i^{* the gods of and
that tPJO Neh. XII 46 stands for ttftn^'ttftn chiefs of1

This fact explains a number of conflicting readings
which the present text exhibits in parallel passages. Thus
in 2 Sam. V 6 it is pXH ntrl* 'DTK the Jebusites the
inhabitant of the land in the singular, and in 1 Chron. XI 4
ljttf' 'DIDM the Jebusites the inhabitants of the land in
the plural. The text had originally DE^ in both places, one
School pronounced it yti*> and inserted a Vav, i. e. 3t£f1%
whilst the other pronounced it 2p"> = 'nttf' and inserted a >W.

In the parallel passage, which describes the conduct
of Ahaziah, we are told in 2 Kings VIII 27 that he walked
DnN IT3 ^Tl? *'** ^ W<7J' °f the house of Ahab, the
singular and in 2 Chron. XXII 3 that he walked JV2 '^TI?
DXIIX /« #?£ ways of the house of Ahab in the plural. Both
passages had originally 3113, which one School pronounced
"]TT3, and the other 5*113 and appended the Yod to mark
this pronunciation.

The same is the case in 2 Kings XVIII 28, and
Isa. XXXVI 13, where identically the same description is
given, yet in the one passage it is ^VUin itemrfl WETT
"Hear the word of the great king'' the singular and in the
other br\Ti "pnn nypflN "lPOtr "Hear the words of the great
king" the plural. The primitive text in both places was

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter \ § 28, Vol. I, p. 681.

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 155

"Q"T, which one School pronounced "H^, and the other
121 and hence appended the Yod to mark this pronunciation.

In some passages the different solutions of the
original spelling simply resulted in the difference of
orthography without affecting the sense at all. Thus in
the description of the solemn covenant which Josiah made
with the elders and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, we are
told in 2 Kings XXIII 3 that he pledged them ft^bb
miT *iriN "to walk after the Lord", and in 2 Chron. XXXIV 3 1
where identically the same description is given, it is
film HHN nibb, thus showing that the primitive "lllX was
pronounced in the one School inN and in the other
1HX = "HPIX; and though this is the plural construct it
denotes exactly the same thing.

In other places, however, the different solutions of
the primitive orthography on the part of the Scribes
produced a marked difference in the sense in the parallel
passages, and it is sometimes difficult to decide which of
the two readings is to be preferred. Thus, in the ad-
monition which Gedaliah gives to the captains of the
army and to their people, he tells them, according to
2 Kings XXV 24 OHtPUn HnPO IKTJT^X 'Tear not
because of the servants of the Chaldees", and in Jerem. XL 9,
where the same event is recorded, it is THPft IXTfl-^K
DHEOn "fear not to serve the Chaldeans". The variation
is easily explained. The primitive orthography in both
passages was "Dl?£, which was resolved by the redactors
of Kings into 12V£ and they marked this reading by
appending the Yod, i. e. HSIttS, whereas the redactors of
Jeremiah resolved it into "DJ?ft and fixed this reading by
inserting the Vav, i. e. "IIDS/ft. The latter is more in harmony
with the context. The Septuagint, however, shews that in
the text which they had before them it was TQgB = '"PgO
in both places.

156 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

The arbitrary treatment to which the orthography was
subject, due to the gradual introduction of the quiescent
letters, and to the expression of the different manner
of reading some words in the vowelless text was not
remedied by the rules which obtained in the Talmudic
period with regard to the matres lectiones. This will be
seen from the following canon:

Three mistakes [in each Column] may be corrected, but if there are
four the Codex must be buried. It is propounded: If the Codex has one
correct column it saves the whole Codex. R. Isaac b. Martha said in the
name of Rab if the greater part of the Codex is correct. Said Abayi to
R. Joseph if the Codex has three mistakes in one column what is to be
done? He replied. It must be given to be corrected and it is right. This
[i. e. the duty to correct it] is applicable to defectives only [i. e. when
plenes have been written defective], but in the case of plenes [i. e. when
plenes have been written instead of defectives] we need not trouble about it.

That is, when this is the case, no duty devolves
upon the Scribe to have the Codex corrected. (Mena-
choth 29b.) [

According to this rule, therefore, to write a plene
defective, is a serious mistake which may be corrected
when only three such mistakes occur in one column, but
when there are four, the Codex must be surrendered to
the Geniza.2 This canon, however, does not apply to cases
of a reverse nature. No serious mistake is committed when
defectives have been written plene. The result of this

pnr yk ,T?i2 by rbwz wbw nnx sp is v* dk Kin mp n ,ptv vbv l
snb "SK y« ,tto xnsD-i ran stcpi Kim syi rrawa sma ns bmtsw *c
■■sjti jprrfc ■wpirifc rrrrrKi bw b"x wa nrrto wbv fp mrra rrot *k spv

♦&"5 mma xm \b rrb rirm bzx mmon ^a

2 Maimonides describes the Geniza as follows: ^DB3tP IK M^ttf H"D

lnna in D*&an n^n bstK iniK paipi Dnn ^bs inuc pma a a*k* 0/ /Ac

Law which is decayed or is rendered ritually illegal is to be put into an
earthen vessel and buried by the side of sages, and this constitutes its
Geniza. (Hilchoth Sepher Thorah X 3).

CHAP. II] The Orthography. 157

rule was that when the Scribe was in doubt whether a
word is to be written plene or defective he naturally
wrote it plene since he thereby committed no mistake
even if the word in question ought properly to have been
written defective.1 This explains the fact that so many
cases of plene have with impunity crept into the MSS.
Hence in weighing the evidence, the benefit of the doubt
is generally to be given to the defective, though this
reading is numerically supported by fewer MSS. and
editions.

1 A very able article on the gradual development of the mat res
lectiones in the Bible and on the Rabbinic law respecting it by Dr. Bardo-
wicz is given in the Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte and Wissenschaft des
Judenthums. Vol. XXXVIIf, pp. 117— 121; 157 — 166. Breslau 1894.

Chap. III.
The Division of Words.

From the fact that both in the Inscription of Mesha
and of Siloam the words are separated by a point, whilst
in the Inscriptions on gems and coins, as well as those in
Phoenician, there is generally no such separation, it is
fairly concluded that originally the words were not strictly
divided and that the process of division like that of the
scriptio plena was of gradual development. This derives
confirmation from the Massorah and the ancient Versions.

The Massorah gives two Lists of words which, accord-
ing to the School of Massorites whence they emanate,
ought to be differently divided. The first List catalogues
fifteen instances in which the text exhibits single words
whereas they ought each to be divided into two separate
words. The second List gives eight passages in which words
exhibit examples of a contrary nature. These words have
been wrongly divided into two, and the Massorah directs that
they should respectively be read as one word.1 These words
are duly noticed as the official Keris, or various readings
in the margin of the Bible in the places where they occur.

Here, however, as is often the case with other Mas-
soretic Rubrics, the instances are simply to be regarded
as typical, or are to be taken as passages recognised by
the particular School which formulated the Lists in ques-
tion. That other Schools of textual critics had different and
longer Lists is evident both from the Massorah itself and the
ancient Versions. Thus according to the ordinarily received
Massoretic text i Kings XX 33 KS$%\\ ^D^W is the proper
division of these two words, and hence this passage is not

1 Corap. The Massorah, letter 2, §§ 482, 483, Vol. II, p. 54.

CHAP. III.]

The Division of Words.

151»

included in the Lists, but we now know from MSS. that
the Easterns had divided them into ttSQ H^rTl.

A careful comparison of the Septuagint with th<-
present Hebrew text undoubtedly shows that in the text
which the Greek translators had before them, there were
many more passages in which the words were otherwise
divided. In the following table I indicate some of the
passages in the order of the books in which they occur.

. . The division in the
Original lext ancient Versions

Massoretic Division

I Sam. I

tt^wnsa vbvfa -£-

rrtifop :-::

Septuagint and Syriac.

XIV

zrzzz z: '22E

Septuagint Syriac.

Zl' 2'2C

2 Sara. XXI

zz— rra 2*2- rrz

=•2— n-a

Sept.

Jerem. XXIII

wanon* Ktean crs*

Xt'ET 2TK

Sept. Vulg. Rashi.

! Ezek

XL VIII

Chaldee, Sept. Syriac.

•:-- Bhj5fin

Hos.

Chaldee, Sept. Syriac.

-X SflDBs^bl

orraaa zr *?sa

Sept. Syriac.

z-".zz

Ps.

c=~ toa = bz --

Chaldee, Sept. Syriac,
Vulg.

oann

XVI

tiki; itt-BL' no = * "TiKna nanaa

Septuagint.

•— r nan jnica

■

Z'i"z:'j" zt" ";;•••

Sept. Syriac.

-'-" =-<"/

LXXI

mtvarwfob rrhtta r-rb

Sept. Vulg. Comp.
Ps. XXXI 3.

pvnat --r x--1?

T • ■ ■ T 7

LXXV

Sept. Syr. Vulg. Cornp.
Ps. XCIX 6.

— ' 2-"-

LXXVI

Sept, Syr. Vulg.

;•:; a=- DTt

„ LXXXV

rbastynw*ty*\ rb> =2^ -2r ■*?«•

rbzzb ttNHty.

Sept. Vulg.

|Prov

XIV

: 11 iukv; u 1" iiiki i intrtwi rvnrmi

Chald. Sept. Syr. Vulg.

nnato --—x-

160 Introduction. [CHAP. 111.

These are .simply typical insiances. I adduce them
because they are now regarded as exhibiting more faith-
fully the original text than the Massoretic division, and
are, adopted by some of the best Biblical critics. And
though I fully agree with their opinion I have adopted
these readings in the marginal notes only, on account of
my principle not to introduce any change in the body of
the Massoretic text itself. They are preceded in my notes
by the abbreviation ^"¥ = nvr6 T1¥ it ought to be so, i. e. it is
the correct reading wherever the ancient Versions con-
firm such a re-division of the words.

There are, however, other passages where the context
suggests a re-division of some of the words, which most
accurate and most conscientious critics have not hesitated
to adopt, though they are not supported by the ancient
Versions. Thus for instance the last word in Gen. XL1X 19
and the first word in verse 20 which are in the Massoretic
text "lt\S£ \2pV and which were originally "ltPXMpl? are
re-divided into ItW IDlpV. This not only obviates the
harshness of the construction and removes the anomaly
of Ttftf Asher alone beginning with the preposition Mem
when all the other tribes begin without it, but yields an
excellent sense

"Gad. a troop shall press upon him,
But he shall press upon their heels;
Asher, his bread shall be etc."

The Revisers who have also taken over the Mem from
the beginning of the next verse have translated it doubly,
as the suffix to 20V heel and the proposition of 1£\S Asher,

1 Kings XIX 2 1 is translated both in the Authorised
Version and in the Revised Version bo/led their flesh. This
is simply an expedient to get over the difficulty in the
text which as it now stands means he boiled them the flesh.

CHAP. III.] The Division of Words. 1 6 1

There is hardly any doubt that the primitive orthography
was n^nnO*?tm and ought to be divided "lfc?3n» bW2 he boiled
some of the flesh.

In Isa. IX 2, as the text now stands one hemistich
contradicts the other, inasmuch as it says:

"Thou hast multiplied the nation,
Thou hast not increased the joy.
They joy before Thee according to the joy &g."

The official Keri, which substitutes the relative pro-
noun lb, to him, for the negative \kb, not, and which the
Revised Version follows, is evidently due to a desire to
remove this contradiction at the sacrifice of the idiom
which requires that it should follow and not precede the
verb. All difficulty, however, disappears and the rhythm
of the passages is restored when we bear in mind that
the original orthography was fcrt?*Jf1 = il^-lfl which has
been wrongly divided into two words and the mater lee-
tiouis Vav was introduced to mark this reading. The passage
ought, therefore, to be rendered:

"Thou hast multiplied their joy

Thou hast increased their rejoicing

They joy before Thee according to the joy in harvest,

And as men rejoice when they divide the spoil." l

Ps. LXVIII 18, which describes Jehovah's march
to transfer His throne from Sinai to the Sanctuary, is
obscured in the present text. In endeavouring to impart
sense to the passage, the Authorised Version renders the
second clause:

"The Lord is among them, as in Sinai in the holy
place."

1 It ought to be mentioned that the late Professor Selwyn in his
Horae Hebraicae, p. 27, Cambridge 1848, has come to the same conclusion.

1G2 Introduction. [CHAP. III.

The difficulty is not removed in the Revised Version
which has it:

"The Lord is among them., as in Sinai in the Sanctuary",
with the marginal note "Or Sinai is the Sanctuary".

The sense is perfectly plain when we resort to the
primitive orthography where it was '3'D3D = ^99 = 5; *• e-

"The Lord hath come from Sinai into the Sanctuary."

For an exact parallel, where the Aleph is omitted in
such cases in the primitive orthography, see Gen. XXX 1 1 ;
and comp. above p. 140.

For these examples there is no support from the ancient
Versions, but they are suggested by the context and sense;
and Biblical critics are more or less unanimous in accept-
ing them. I have, therefore, given them in the marginal
notes preceded by the abbreviation b"j = *>*"> HK13 it appears
to me, I am of opinion, in contradistinction to those which
have the support of the Versions and are preceded by
*?"¥ it ought to be. They are designed to aid the student,
who can either accept or reject them.

Chap. IV.

The Double or Final letters.

The fact that the Hebrew Scriptures were originally
written in the ancient Hebrew or Phoenician characters,
and that this alphabet has no final letters, shows beyond
doubt that the double letters were gradually developed
after the introduction of the present square characters.
The Massorah itself has preserved two Lists of variants
which presuppose the non-existence of the double letters.
These Lists record instances where the text reads one
word and the margin reads two words; and vice versa,
passages in which the text has two words and the margin
one word. From these Lists1 I subjoin the following
examples in the order of the books in which they occur:

Text

Margin

i Sam.

par p&

poraa

XXIV

mwi p

rrwib

2 Sam.

XXI

DTircban Dtp

trnwbfi n&tr

Isa.

ran bb

nznab

Job XXXVIII

rnjHKTMa

nnycn p

mpwb

mSD p

Lament.

ro jo

roa

Neh.

tnrnwKi

ffame an

i Chron.

xxvir

vtnsb

■w pb

These variants could not possibly have obtained if
the final letters had existed.

Comp. The Massorah, letter 3, §§ -}cS2, 483, Vol II, p. 54.

I.-

164

Introduction.

[CHAP. IV.

It is moreover certain that the translators of the
Septuagint had no knowledge of these final letters. This
is attested by numerous passages in this Version from
which I select the following instances:

Septuagint

Massoretic Text

Gen.

XXVIII

Ov?M[iAovg =

rfc&biK

nb d^ik

Numb.

XXXIV

CC7tO — 67tCpttflUQ Btjkcc =

r\bz nfcatwa

nbsnn DBt^a

2 Kings II

aqxpoo =

KYTfiX

Kin ^k

Jerem.

XXXI

SV £OQXfl =

Itt&a

my D2

Hos.

y.al to XQL[ict [iov d>g cpcog =

= 11K3 WWl

IIS* TWMWM

Nahum

xuzttQ%CQV vddrcov =

z'ti b'cz

C'ftbV DX

Zeph.

III

£V OOi SVSKSV GOV =

■prab -nx

-para baa n«

Zech.

slg xrjv Xccvuuvixiv =

':s:zb

«w p*

Ps.

XLIV

6 ©sog (iov 6 bvzs/ddfisvog

= mxa *nb*

mat a-n^K

„

LXIV

S§SQ8VV(bvT£g S^SOSVVt'jGSL

= pan Dtren

pana pen

Prov.

XII

nma ri-

TTTftSW

Neh.

VII

,HXauc4c'(o =

■uta^r

nrra nb'V

The fact; therefore, that the ancient translators fre-
quently read the same consonants as one word which the
present text reads as two words, in cases where the last
letter of the first word is one of the five final letters, shows
conclusively that these final letters did not exist at the
time when the Septuagint version was made.- With a text
before them in which one form of a letter was used at
the beginning and in the middle of a word, and another
form at the end, these joinings together of two words
into one word would have been impossible on the part
of the Greek translators. I have deemed it necessary to
make this point clear because I have adopted in the notes,
some of the re-divisions of words preserved in the ancient
Versions, in passages where the final letters of the present
text might be thought absolutely to preclude such
re-divisions.

Chap. V.
Abbreviations.

All post-Biblical Hebrew writings contain copious
abbreviations. Students of the Talmud, the Midrashim and
the mediaeval religious literature generally know frequently
to their discomfort, that there is hardly a page in which
these puzzling expressions are not to be found: and how
grateful they are for those special Treatises which have
been written to aid them in resolving these embarrassing-
abbreviations, which sometimes represent a whole sentence.

In the Biblical MSS. with the Massorah. it is well
known that the latter abounds in abbreviations. In the text
itself, however, these abbreviations are as a rule not
tolerated. "When the line is insufficient to take in the
last word, the vacant space is generally filled out with
dots or is in unfinished letters. This is the case in Orient.
4445, which is the oldest portion of the Hebrew Bible
known at present, and in the St. Petersburg Codex of
the Latter Prophets dated A. D. 916. In the St. Petersburg
Codex, however, the word which is too large for the end of
the line is not (infrequently represented in an abbreviation
of one, two or even three letters at the end. but the whole
word is also repeated at the beginning of the next line. Thus
in Isa. VIII 13 Q stands for DDKTIO at the end of the line
and the whole word is repeated at the commencement of
the next line. In Isa. IX 8 31 stands for blZZ* at the end, but
the whole word is also given at the beginning of the next
line. The same is the case in XIV 2 where HI stands for

166 Introduction. [CHAP. V.

nn^mnni; XXIII 3 where m stands for O'Wl; XXVI 8
where b) stands for -pn^l; XXVII 8 where KD1 stands
for nKDKM; XXXVII 10 where ETp stands for D^tfTV, and
in many more passages, but in all these instances, the
whole word is generally repeated at the beginning of the
next line.

There are, however, MSS. which have abbreviations
in the text, but in which the abbreviated part of the word
is given in the margin. Thus Codex No. 15 in the Imperial
and Royal Court Library Vienna, which contains the
Pentateuch, the Haphtaroth and the Five Megilloth and
which is a Model Codex, exhibits numerous instances of
this kind. I extract from it the following examples:

Gen.

X 16

ban

v: t

fol.

XVII 20

Mi?ai?

14 z?

„ 26

y&trn

14*

„

XVIII 21

i??¥W

„

156

XX 15

&**

r»

18a

XXII 18

nanm

20 ^

„

XXIV 17

*Ti?^

„

lib

XXV 18

"SP?

23 &

XXVII 12

rn?p3

25 &

XXXII 20

xxbz

32^.

XXXVI 18

ybn«

360

The same is the case in No. 5 of this Collection which
contains the Prophets, of which the following examples
will suffice:

Josh.

VI 12

n?nisn

fol. 5*

VII 3

T T

„ 6Z>

» 4

IT-

» 6Z7

A very remarkable use of abbreviations with their
compliments is exhibited in Codex No. 3 in the Madrid
University Library. When a word is too long for the line,

:hap. v.]

Abbreviations.

167

a portion of it is given in the text and the rest is either
put perpendicularly in the margin or is placed above the
abbreviated word as will be seen from the following
example:

Levit. XV 31

■ XVIII 3

„ XXII 2

„ xxm 19

« 36

„ XXVI 25

'n L •

In some instances the finishing part of the word is
not given in the margin so that the text exhibits a regular
abbreviation.

The question which, therefore, naturally arises is —
seeing that abbreviations are copiously used in the oldest
extra-canonical writings, and that they are not only to be
found on the Maccabean coins, but that they occur conjointly
with the fully written out word in Biblical MSS. — Were
they ever used by themselves in the Hebrew text? As
we have no Biblical MSS. of the pre-Talmudic period, we
have to appeal for the answer to the ancient Versions
which were made from a text written prior to the ortho-
graphical laws laid down by the Scribes. Chief among the
ancient witnesses, which bear testimony to the use of ab-
breviations in the Hebrew text, is the Septuagint. From a
number of passages it is perfectly evident that the trans-
lators had a Hebrew text before them in which half

168 Introduction. [CHAP. V.

words and even single letters were used as abbreviations.
I subjoin the following passages as typical examples:

In Gen. XLVII 3 VllX = V'TTX was read by the trans-
lators of the ancient Versions as an abbreviation for
^pi'* TIN the brethren of Joseph. This is attested by the
Samaritan, Jonathan, the Septuagint and the Syriac and
is undoubtedly the correct reading. A similar abbreviation
occurs in 2 Sam. Ill 21 where V'TIN stands for 2$V ^PIX the
brother of Joab as it is resolved in the Septuagint.

In Exod. VIII 23 "1IBJ0 is resolved by the Septuagint
into "1QX '' = lax iliJT as Jehovah said which is prefer-
able to the Massoretic reading.

In Levit. VI 10, according to the testimony of the
Samaritan, the Septuagint and the Vulgate, 'EWO stands for
'' 'EW» = flliT 'BfKfi the offerings of Jehovah. This is not only
confirmed by verse 11, but by some MSS.

In Numb. XXIII 10 1DD£1 is an abbreviation for
1DD Eft = *1DD W and who can number. This is the solu-

- T - T

tion of the Septuagint and is the reading of some of the
Samaritan MSS. Accordingly the verse ought to be
rendered:

"Who can count the dust of Jacob

And who can number the fourth part of Israel."

It will be seen that this restores the parallelism which
is marred by the Massoretic solution.1

In Deut. XXXII 35 ^, as is evident from Onkelos,
the Samaritan and the Septuagint, is an abbreviation of Dl^
for the day. Accordingly the passage is to be rendered:

"Is not this laid up in store with me,
Sealed up in my treasuries?

1 This solution is also implied in the explanation of this passage given
in the Midrash pDl^OlK ITttb^ b^V "» ,fhv WWl bVHW SQII MK nSDEI
ijmxfc RSTB? Comp. Bamidbar Rab., § 20.

CHAP. V.] Abbreviations. 169

For the day of vengeance and recompense,
For the time when their foot shall slip."

It will thus be seen that Di^ for the day and r\Vb
for the time obtain their natural parallelism and that the
third line corresponds to the first, and the fourth to the
second line in accordance with one of the laws of Hebrew-
parallelism.

In 2 Sam. V 25 Viytl is an abbreviation of p'tf^iltt
from Gibeon. This is not only attested by the Septuagint,
but is confirmed by the parallel passage in 1 Chron.
XIV 16, which records the same event. This removes the
discrepancy between the two passages which narrate iden-
tically the same occurrence.

In 2 Sam. XVII 11 21p2 is an abbreviation of
03*1p2 in the midst of them, and the passage ought to be
rendered:

"and thou thyself shalt go in the midst of them."

This is not only the solution of the abbreviation in the
Septuagint and Vulgate, but is most suitable to the con-
text. Besides 2*lp is never used in Samuel for battle or
war which is invariably 7\firhft.

These are simply a few of the abbreviations which
are supported by the ancient Versions and which I have
adopted in the notes as affording a better solution than
those exhibited in the received text.

I have also suggested a few not given in the ancient
Versions. Thus for instance:

In 1 Kings XXI 23 bTVl is manifestly an abbrevia-
tion of pbnz in the portion of This is rendered certain
from the parallel passages in 2 Kings IX io; 36 and is
adopted in the margin of the Revised Version.

In 2 Kings VI 27 the words HliT ^VpVmb8 which
literally denote let not Jehovah help thee, are simply per-

170 Introduction. [CHAP. V.

plexing. The rendering of the Authorised Version: "If the
Lord do not help thee", is contrary to the meaning of Stf.
Nor is the difficulty removed by the marginal rendering in
the Revised Version: "Nay, let the Lord help thee", since
this is a departure from the normal sense of this negative
particle. The sentence is relieved and the construction be-
comes grammatical if b$ is taken as the abbreviation of
X1? DN which is the proper Hebrew equivalent for

If the Lord do not help thee.

In 2 Kings XVIII 2 and 2 Chron. XXIX 1 the same
narrative is recorded. In the former the name of the
mother of Hezekiah is given as >2X Abi, and in the latter
as iTDN Ahijah. This discrepancy in identically the same
record, is removed by the fact that >3N is the abbrevia-
tion of iT3X. Such a name as >2X Abi does not occur in the

T • -: • -:

Hebrew Bible.

In the abbreviations I have carefully distinguished
those which are supported by the ancient Versions from
those which I have suggested. The former are preceded
by b'"£ = nvnb -p¥ it should be and the latter by V: =
^ fIN*13 it appears to me.

Chap. VI.
Homoeoteleuton.

All those who are familiar with transcribing- know
by experience the omissions which are due to what is
technically called homoeoteleuton; that is when the clause
ends with the same word as closes a preceding- sentence.
The transcriber's eye in such a case frequently wanders
from one word to the other, and causes him to omit the
passage which lies between them. The same effect is produced
when two or more sentences begin with the same words.
As this fruitful source of error has hitherto been greatly
neglected by those who have been engaged in the criticism
of the Hebrew text, it necessitates my discoursing upon it
at somewhat greater length. In proving the existence of
omissions arising from this cause, I shall arrange the in-
stances according to the age of the respective MSS. in
which I have found them, and not in the order of the books
wherein they occur. My reason for adopting this chrono-
logical plan is to show that this cause of error has been
in operation in all ages and in all countries from which
our Biblical MSS. are derived.

In Oriental 4445 (fol. 107 a\ which is the oldest Bibli-
cal MS. known at present, the whole of Levit. XXI 24
was originally omitted, because it begins with *T3T1 and he
spake and XXII 1 also begins with 1ST1 and he spake. The
Scribe's eye wandered from one word to the other which
is identically the same. The verse has been added by a
later hand.

172 Introduction. [CHAP. V .

In the St. Petersburg or Babylon Codex; which is
dated A. D. 916 (fol. 90 a\ Jerem. XXXI 30 is omitted
because of the homoeoteleuton PD>fipF) shall be set on edge

iTPfipfl shall be set on edge. A later Scribe has supplied

the omission and disfigured the MS.

In the same MS. (fol. 1390), the last clause of Eze-
kiel XVIII 30 and the first clause of verse 31 are omitted,

viz. DystfB-ta-riK oybvp wbpn : pr b'Wzbi nib nw-ifri

so iniquity shall not be your ruin: cast away from yon your
transgressions, because of the homoeoteleuton tiyyiDB your

transgressions DDWttfS your transgressions. The passage

which lies between the same words and which has thus
been omitted, is supplied in the margin by a later hand.
In Arundel Oriental 16, a superbly written Franco-
German MS. of about A. D. 1250, nearly the whole
verse in 2 Chron. XXVI 9 and the first two words of
verse 10 are omitted, owing to the homoeoteleuton
D^jO towers tpb^ytl towers, viz. n3BH ^Vti'bv D^ENT3

■ t: ■ ■ t: ■ ' T.____._T.

D^Jfi p?l tDjJtnn PlJtpBrrt?! KJ3n lyv-bV) in Jerusalem
at the corner gate, and at the valley gate, and at the turn
ing of the wall, and fortified them. And he built towers
(comp. fol. 273 a). The omission, as usual, has been supplied
in the margin by a later Scribe. When it is stated that
this is a most carefully and sumptuously written MS.,
furnished with the most copious Massorah, and that it was
manifestly a model Codex, it is evident that it required
superhuman care to avoid the errors arising from this source.
In Add. 9401 — 9402 dated A. D. 1286 (fol. 18 a), the
whole of Gen. XVIII 32 is omitted, owing to the ending
DnfeWH W3 for forty's sake .... nypyn 1^a$3 for ten's
sake verses 31 and 32. The omission as usual has been
supplied by a later hand.

In the same MS. the second part of Levit. XV 4 is
omitted owing to the two clauses ending with XfcW shall

CttAP. VI | Homoeoteleuton. 17.'*

be unclean .... NBC3* shall be unclean. The clause -^31

T : • T :

KOft' D-tn V^P nttf^Wx »tan 0«d et/m/ /ftfft£ whereon he sitteth

T : • T " T T ....... -: . : - <->

shall be unclean is added in the margin by a subsequent
reviser (comp. fol. 115 &).

In Oriental 2091 a magnificently written MS. of the
German School, circa A. D. 1300, I found no fewer than forty-
three omissions due to homoeoteleuta; in the Prophets and
Hagiographa which this Codex contains.1

These omissions continued uninterapteally even in
the MSS. which were written after the invention of print-
ing. Thus in Add. 15251 a choice Spanish Codex; written
in 1488, the very year in which the first edition of the
entire Hebrew Bible was published, there is the omission
of the words aftM pHK Up DR1 rVlBB"^? upon his rod;
And the name of Aaron thou shall write Numb. XVII, 17, 18,
due to the homoeoteleuton DrDF) thou shall write .... DrDtf
thou shall write (comp. fol. 93 a).

In the same MS. fol. 93 b} the second half of Numb.

xxvi 62 is omitted, i. e. ^jnfr? »ia ^ina nb.m Utlb ffi?"*6 »3

because there was not given them an inheritance among the
children of Israel, due to the two clauses ending in ^JOt^
Israel . . . Snfr> Israel.

These examples might be multiplied almost indefini-
tely. If the omissions in the Hebrew text due to this
cause occur not only in the very first or oldest MS., but
continue in the succeeding MSS. produced in different
centuries and various countries, and also appear in the
very latest Codex copied by the human hand, it is perfectly
certain that the same source of error was in operation

1 The following are some of them: Josh. Ill 17, IV I pTH ♦ ♦ ♦ pTH,
fol. 3 a; Josh. XV 63 ♦TrTirP "M ♦ ♦ ♦ TTTffT *Xlt fol. 13 a; Judg. VII 19, 20

nvrfiwa ♦ ♦ ♦ nnaitto, foi. 26 «; judg. xvi 3 rfcbn * * ♦ rtobn, foi. 33 b;

1 Sam. XTV 40 iriK invb ♦ ♦ ♦ HHK "Orb, fol. 46 rt; I Kings VII 4, 5

D^fi vbv ♦ « ♦ D'&ya wbv, foi. 90 « &c. &c

174 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

in the production of the MSS. prior to those which we
now possess. In the absence of these MSS., however, the
only course left to us is carefully to examine the ancient
Versions which were made from a Hebrew recension older
by more than a millennium than the oldest MSS. of the
present Massoretic text.

A comparison of the present text with the ancient
Versions for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
Scribes have omitted passages due to homoeoteleuta from
the time of the Septuagint down to the date of our oldest
MS., just as they have omitted them from the period of
the oldest Codex down to the invention of printing, is far
more easy and much more certain in result than the
utilization of the Version for merely various readings. In
the case of retranslating into Hebrew a variant exhibited
in the Greek, scholars may differ as to the exact Hebrew
equivalent for a single word. But there can be no question
in deciding whether the ancient Version has a whole sen-
tence more than is to be found in the present Hebrew
text, more especially if the sentence which is found in the
Greek, when re-translated into Hebrew, fits in between the
two words of similar ending. The certainty in this case is
as great as the proper fitting in of the pieces in a dis-
sected puzzle-map. Indeed it carries far more conviction than
the testimony of a few Codices in a mass of conflicting
MSS., as to the right reading in a given passage.

The first instance which I shall adduce to prove that
owing to the cause here stated, passages have been omitted
by Scribes in the MSS. produced after the Septuagint and
prior to the date of any Codex which we now possess, is
from the Book of Kings.

In i Kings VIII 16 the text now is

Hebrew

b*n&1 izybv rttrb tna -ii-qki ♦ ♦ « ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

CHAP. VI.] Homoeoteleuton. L75

Septuagint

bKrtw W"f?» Tftrfo ths irQNI air *&u nprfc aStrn-s irQXl

• T : • • - - : • ■ T : T • : : • - t

From the simple exhibition of these two passages it
will be seen that the Septuagint has preserved the original
reading and that the Scribe's eye, in copying the Massoretic
text, has wandered from one *1I"Q&0 and I have chosen to
the other and I have chosen. Hence the omission of the
clause and I have chosen Jerusalem that my name might
be there. In this case, however, we are not left to the
Septuagint alone to establish the fact. In the parallel
narrative 2 Chron. VI 6, where the same incident is narrated,
the omission is literally given.

banto? ^Tbv rftrb inn irQXI n^ W ni^n1? a.^rn-n 1113X1

"And I have chosen Jerusalem that my name might be
there and I have chosen David &c."

But though this omission is incidentally confirmed
by the parallel passage, the other instances, for which there
are no duplicate records in the Hebrew Scriptures, are
equally conclusive. Some of these I shall now give in the
order in which they occur.

Josh. II 1 Heb. nfK ITS IKS*! , . . ♦

Sept. ntste rvs 1iO>l irrn; anrsn ^p lion

Here the clause and the two young men came to Jericho
is omitted because of the similar words and the/ came ....
and they came. They are preserved in the Septuagint.

Josh. IX 27 Heb. ♦ ♦ ♦ njr nai&b*

Sept. a^ <axfcn a^y *aan yvz: w m DM^X rQfiD^I

Here, after the words "and for the altar of God", the
following words are omitted: "And the inhabitants of Gibeon
became hewers of wood, and drawers of water for the altar
of God" because of the two similar endings "the altar of

176 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

God" . ... the altar of God. They are preserved in the
Septuagint.

Josh. X 12 Heb ♦ bVH& "3a

Sept. ^NW "33 "3B12 PtiMfcl pTM Dm&tfH MtfKa ^XW

Here the words "when they destroyed them in Gibeon,
and they were destroyed from before the children of Israel"
are omitted because of the two endings Israel .... Israel.
They are preserved in the Septuagint.

Josh. XIII 7 Heb. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ mBfin Bat?

Sept. binan a*n m?nn w Ijlip DJTU? IT?-*"!1? HEttBn ftat^
nEttn tsmfiy "am a"&a$n "stfbi step mm

Here the words 'from the Jordan to the great sea west-
ward thou shall give it, the great sea shall be the boundary;
and unto the half tribe of Manasseh" are omitted because
of the two similar endings the half tribe of Manasseh . ... the
half tribe of Manasseh.

Josh. XXIV 6 Heb. tf-tite

Sept. DHXBn onk *3jm am dot ^na "tab Dtf wi 0H¥2

r T -: — t: t : T : 7 : —

Here the words "and they became there a great, populous
and mighty people and the Egyptian afflicted them" are
omitted because of the two similar endings in the Hebrew,
Egypt .... Egypt. The Septuagint has preserved them.

Josh. XXIV 17 Heb. •■■■♦♦« H^laH KIM

Sept. r6ya Kin a\-6a Kin

Here the words He is God are omitted because of the
two endings he .... he. The Septuagint has preserved them.

judg. xvi 13 Heb. ♦ nma rpnm

Sept. npni |tf; "a \mi :D^xn irixa "mm "m^rn lira Ppnm
"UVa Ppnm nawrrca? omani Whh niabrrD ratsrnK r6"^M

Here the clause "then shall I be weak as another man.
And it came to pass when he was asleep that Delilah took
the seven locks of his head and wove them with the web and
fastened them with a pin" is omitted because of the two

CHAP. VI.] HomoeoteleutOD. 177

similar endings and fastened them with a pin .... and fastened
them with a pin. That the Septuagint exhibits the primitive
text is moreover confirmed by the fact that the Massoretic
text as it now stands says nothing about Samson having
gone to sleep though verse 14 alludes to it.

judg. xviii 22 Heb wo rvaa

sept, nyfi runi nyn irao

Here the words "and behold Micah" are omitted because
of the homoeoteleuton Micah .... Micah. They are preserved
in the Septuagint.

t Sam. Ill 15 Heb. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Ip^Ti IV

sept. "ip2D aatth ^ipnn -ir

Here the words "and he rose early in the morning' are
omitted because of the homoeoteleuton the morning ....
the morning. They are preserved in the Septuagint.

1 Sam. X 1 Heb. ♦♦♦♦'. HIT

Sept. nriKi nirr Dra -ttrn nnKi ^*nfe?;"^2 foy-by tm^ mn1
f"l1iT ,'|ntfo-,,5 m'xn •?ji? rni jraso wit to lay-tfim

Here the clause "ybr a ruler over his people over Israel?
And thou shall rule among the people of the Lord, and thou
shalt save them out of the hand of their enemies, and this
shall he a sign to thee that the Lord has anointed thee" is
omitted. The omission which is due to the homoeoteleuton
the Lord . ... the Lord is preserved in the Septuagint.

1 Sam. XIII 15 Heb. ♦ blbXT]&

Sept. nvngb bmf ■nn* nby nvri -irri I3*r6 ^b*i '^jrrftt

Wain-p »6p non^an or

Here the words "az/d we/// fe's way awa* /%£ remnant of
the people went after Saul to meet the men of war and they
came out of Gilgal" are omitted. The omitted clause which
is due to the homoeoteleuton out of Gilgal .... out of Gilgal
is preserved in the Septuagint.

178 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

Joshua XXI 36; 37. The omission of these two
verses in some MSS. is due to the fact that the following
verse begins with the same word, viz. nftftft'l and out of the
tribe of The transcriber's eye, as is often the case, wandered
from one ntSftft** verses 36, 37 to the other nftftft"! in verse
38, thus skipping over the two verses in question. I have
reserved the examination of this omission for the last, both
because it is the most instructive illustration in this
category and because it requires a more lengthy discussion.
The context itself shows that the two verses have been
omitted by a clerical error, since without them the enumera-
tion is incomplete. We are expressly told in verse 7 that
the Merarites obtained twelve cities, i. e. four from each
of the three tribes, Reuben, Gad and Zebulun. The four
cities contributed by Zebulun are enumerated (verse 35),
so also are the four cities contributed by Gad (verses 38,
39). Now without Reuben and his four cities there are
only eight cities instead of twelve as stated in verse 40.
In this instance, however, we are not left to conjecture
to supply the omission, nor even to the ancient Versions
alone. Unlike the former omissions which are attested only
by the ancient Versions, this omission is proved by
many of the best MSS. and all the early editions. Not
only have the Septuagint and the Vulgate these two
verses, but they are found in some of the earliest dated
MSS., as will be seen from the following* description.

Orient. 2201, which is dated A. D. 1246, has the two
verses in the text with the vowel-points and accents and
with the following remark in the margin: "these two verses
are not written in the text of the Codex called Hillali".^

The splendid MS. No. 1 in the Madrid University
Library, which is dated A. D. 1280, and which is manifestly
a Model Codex, has the two verses.

Abr\ x^p:n -120*2 prrns pit "p\ot *-in \"bn '

CHAW VI.] Homoeoteleuton. 1?0

x\dd. 15250 in the British Museum, a beautiful MS. of
about the end of the 13th century, has not only the two
verses, but has a Massoretic note against 1^3"DX Bezer that
it occurs ("T =) four times. This shows beyond doubt that
the School of Massorites from which this note proceeds
regarded the two verses as an integral part of the text.
For though 11C3 Bezer by itself occurs five times (Deut.
IV 43; Josh XX 8; 1 Chron. VI 63; VII 37 and the passage
before us), 1¥3TlNt with the accusative particle only occurs
four times, since in 1 Chron. VII 37 it is simply H¥3 without
the -DX.

Besides these Codices, I have to add the following
MwSS. in the British Museum alone which have the two
verses: Arund. Orient. 16; { Add. 15250; Add. 1525 1; Add.
15252; Add. 15451; Add. 9398; Add. 26897; Harley 1528;
Harley 5774; Orient. 147 1; Orient. 2369; Orient. 2370; Orient.
2371; Orient. 2415; Orient. 2626 — 28; Orient. 4227.

Moreover these two verses are given in the text of
all the early editions: The first edition of the Prophets,
Soncino 1485 — 86, has them; so also the first edition of
the entire Hebrew Bible, Soncino 1488; the second edition,
Naples 1 49 1 — 93; the third edition, Brescia 1494; the Former
Prophets, Pesaro 151 1; the Complutensian Polyglot; the
first Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1 5 1 7 ; and in the
three quarto editions of Bomberg, Venice 15 17, 1521 and
1525. Jacob b. Chayim was the first who omitted these

1 In Arund. Orient. 1 6 the two verses are not pointed and the
Punctuator has added the following note in the margin: "^TCI 'plDB '- j'X

r"pa amino ^xi ,D'nnx a^seo D'pnrm atm: "an nsoai td naoa 'aina
'nno *xsb rjwn twno dip Brnwa nw u-pv ma ax ■a joipo nr px -jx
kx&2 rrwv dtw any bnua ftni naooi nj naooi pwn hbod sninewo^
pawn a*:no man mitn manp nsir nna '32 inpn "a wrim nsaa now i^na
0 'a xi'o; p'mor terra mai mw dtiit noin ninnx any my inpbi ntr

fr\ arm 'an nscm 're nsaa Diana xn pnn

180 Introduction. [CHAP. VI:

verses in the editio princeps of his Rabbinic Bible with
the Massorah 1524 — 25.

The objections raised against the genuineness of these
two verses based upon the Massorah, viz. (1) that they are
against the Massoretic Summary which gives the number
of verses at the end of this book; (2) that their retention in
the text is against the Massoretic statement that Isa. XVII 3
is the middle of the 9294 verses contained in the Prophets
and (3) that IV^TIN Bezer and nlS7p-flK Kedenwth are
not included in the Massoretic List which tabulates all the
instances of fiN in Josh. XXI 11 — 37 — all prove that the
School, from which these Massoretic remarks proceeded,
did not recognise these two verses. Hence, these particular
Massorites guarded against them by the remarks in question.
The MSS., however, which exhibit these two verses in
the text proceed from another and more ancient School
of Massorites. The Codices upon which they worked were
anterior to the clerical blunder which omitted the verses
from the text, as is attested by the ancient Versions. Hence,
their Massorah is based upon the existence of these two
verses in the text. The analysis in the foregoing chapters
of the Sections, Verses, Division of words &c. &c. shows
beyond doubt the existence of different Massoretic Schools,
with different recensions of the Hebrew text. To adduce,
therefore, the arguments derived from one Massoretic
School only proves that this particular School worked
upon a particular text. These few instances which mig"ht
easily be multiplied must suffice. Some of them I have
given in the marginal notes, and I should have given them
all, but for the fact that I had not finished my re-translation
of the whole Septuagint into Hebrew when this edition of
the Hebrew Bible was being printed.1

1 Other instances will be found in I Sam. XIV 42; XV 13; XVII 36;
2 Sam. VI 21; XIII. 27, 34; XIV 30; XV 18, 20; XIX 11 ; 1 Kings II 29;

CHAP. VI. "I Homoeoteleuton. 181

It is to be remarked that not only does the Septuagint
exhibit passages which are omitted in the present Hebrew
text due to homoeoteleuta, but it shows that sentences are
also omitted in the Septuagint itself arising" from the same
cause. The following" instances will prove this fact:

Josh. VI 22 Heb. H^ Dfl£3tf3 ntfK3 H^ TiTK
Sept. ♦ . fb 1WK

Here the words "as ye sware unto her' are omitted in
the Septuagint because of the homoeoteleuton to her . . . .
to her.

Josh. VIII 25, 26 Heb. {ITS? HB3 ItiX IT JrttflTlfc JNtfliTl Wl

Sept. ♦ ...♦♦♦.♦ * rrn

Here the whole of verse 26: "iw Joshua drew not his
hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until lie had
utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of At" , is omitted in the
Septuagint because of the homoeoteleuton Ai . . . . Ai at the
end of verses 25 and 26.

judg. in 22, 23 Heb. -una K3??! inntthft? N3£?1
Sept. tin* ar*

Here the words and the dirt went out are omitted in
the Septuagint because of the homoeoteleuton and he went
out .... and he went out.

1 Sam. XX 26, Heb. S^H ni,T£ *rbz Nlil mpJS

Sept. ♦♦♦♦♦.♦♦♦♦ win mpa
Here the words /^ is not clean are omitted in the
Septuagint because of the homoeoteleuton &0H ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ N1H.

2 Sam. XXIII 28, 29 Heb. TlDb^H TO3-J3 3^n PriDbSH

Sept. ♦♦♦♦♦,♦♦ pnabp

The first part of verse 29, consisting" of the words
"Heleb the son of Baauah a Netophathite" , is omitted in the

III 27; VIII 65; XVIII 44; 2 Kings XVII 20, 32; XIX 20; XXII 16;
Isa. XXII 22 &c. &c.

182 Introduction. [CHAP. VI

Septuagint because of the homoeoteleuton Netophathite ....
Neiophathite.

These instances too might easily be multiplied.1 Here,
however, it is more difficult to decide whether the authors of
the Septuagint had a Hebrew text before them in which
these passages were omitted; or whether the translators
themselves omitted them owing to the homoeoteleuta. All
the passages in this category which I have given in the
notes are preceded by ffcO K¥ft3 ITfQ the Septuagint has
here &c.

1 Other instances occur in I Kings IV 13; VI 31 VIII 41 ; XV 6;
XVI 11; 2 Kings XVI 11 ; XIX 10, 15; Isa. XLI 14; LXIII 18 &c. &c.

Chap. VII.
The Keri and Kethiv.

In every book of the Massoretic Bible a number of
extraordinary forms are exhibited in the text which are
exceedingly perplexing to the student of Hebrew. These
abnormal forms and unpronounceable words are produced
by the vowel-points which are affixed to certain words, but
which are most inappropriate to the consonants, as will
be seen from the following instances: 1*108*1 (Josh. VI 7),
K»ltt*2) linvn (2 Sam. V 2), ^ (2 Sam. XXI 9) Wpip (2 Sam.
XXIII 13), ir^n (1 Kings VII 45), UK (Jerem. XLII 6),

-r>G (Ezek. ix 11), niDtf*f nnnnoi (Ezek. xlii 9) nnrr

intf (Job. XXXVIII 12), [3 (2 Chron. XI 18) etc. etc. In
some instances there are actually more vowel-points in
the text than consonants, and hence these signs are
without a consonant. Thus for instance 7WV (1 Sam. XX 2),
^8 (1 Kings. XV 18), V.-M (Jerem. XVIII 23) &c. &c.

In Hebrew Grammars the student is told that the
vowel-signs which produce these abnormal forms and dis-
figure the text, do not belong* to the words in question, but
to other words which are exhibited in the margin and
which are the authoritative reading. Accordingly the marginal
variant or the official reading, called the Keri ('"ID), is to
have the vowel-points, whilst the word written in the text,
called technically the Kethiv (TWO)* has no vowel-signs at
all. The Massorites, therefore, who have decided that the
marginal Keri is the correct one, have in all these instances

184 Introduction. [CHAP. VII.

deprived us of the vowel-signs which were originally affixed
to the words exhibited in the text.

Without entering into a discussion on the merits
or demerits of these official various readings as a whole,
it is now admitted by the best textual eristics that in many
instances the reading exhibited in the text (2V13) is pre-
ferable to the marginal variant Pip), inasmuch as it some-
times preserves the archaic orthography and sometimes gives
the original reading. The Kethiv or textual reading more-
over is in many instances not only supported by MSS.
and early editions, but by the ancient Versions. As accord-
ing to the testimony of the Massorah itself, the vowel
signs do not in these instances belong to the text, but
to the marginal reading, and moreover as the original
vowel-signs which did belong to the text have been sup-
pressed altogether, I have left the Kethiv entirely without
the vowel-signs, and have given in the margin both the
Kethiv and the Keri with their respective vowel-signs. This
principle I have adopted in fairness to the Biblical student
to afford him an opportunity of judging for himself as to
which is the preferable reading. Moreover to aid him in
his decision I have in most cases given the MSS., the
early editions and the ancient Versions, which support the
Kethiv and those which exhibit the Keri. I know that some
critics may in sundry cases differ from me as to the
proper pointing of the Kethiv, but in the absence of all
MS. authority I could do it only according to the best
of my judgment.

It is to be remarked that this corpus of official
various readings has been transmitted to us in three
different forms, (i) Originally each of these variations was
given in the margin of the text against the word affected
by it. The word in the text was furnished with a small
circle or asterisk over it, which directed the reader to

CHAP. VII.] The Keri and Kethiv. 185

the marginal variant. This ancient practice still prevails
in all Massoretic MSS of the Bible and is adopted in all
the best editions. (2) Later scribes collected these mar-
ginal readings and arranged them in separate Lists which
they appended to the respective books in Model Codices.1
These Lists, however, do not always agree in number
with those exhibited in the margin and the two classes
must frequently be utilized to supplement each other.
(3) The third form in which these official variants have
been preserved in the Massorah is more artificial, and in
some instances more perplexing. The whole corpus of
various readings has been classified by the Massorites under
different Rubrics. Thus for instance all those which affect
the same verb are put together in one Rubric under the
same root: - those which affect the same particle are collected
together in one Rubric:3 all the instances in which the
same letter is affected are grouped together4 &c. &c.

But all the three classes which supplement and con-
trol one another, by no means exhaust all the instances
embraced under the Keri and Kethiv hitherto printed,
simply because no single MS. contains them all either in
the margins, or in the separate Lists which are prefixed
and appended to the different Codices. The reason lies
in the fact that the different Schools of Massorites were
not agreed among themselves in the critical canons which
they respectively followed. Hence that which is exhibited
as Keri in the margin in a MS. proceeding from one School
is no Keri in the MSS. which emanated from another
School and vice versa. In order to exhibit, therefore, all
the Keris irrespective of the different Schools, it is absolutely

1 This is the case for instance in Arundel Or. 16.

2 Comp. The Massorah, letter K, § 796, Vol. r, p. 36, K § 843, Vol. 1, p. 91.

3 Comp. The Massorah, letter X, §§ 513, 514, Vol. 1, p. 57.

4 Comp. The Massorah, letter n, §§ 26, 27, Vol. 1, p. 268.

186 Introduction. [CHAP. VII.

necessary to collate all the existing MSS. which at present
is almost an impossible task. I have, however, compared
as many MSS. both in the public Libraries of Europe,
and in the possession of private owners, as were accessible
to me, and have, therefore, been able to give a larger
number of Keris and Kethivs than those which are printed
in any other edition of the Hebrew Bible.

Chap. VIII.
Sevirin.

The corpus of various readings denoted by the term
Sevirin (PT3D) as we shall presently show, is of equal
importance to the class of variants comprised in the official
Keri (,hlp), though it has hardly been noticed by modern
critics. Indeed in some respects it is more important than
the alternative readings which have hitherto been so scru-
pulously given in the margin of our Bibles under the
name of Keri by modern editors who have either entirely
banished the Sevir from the margin or have on extremely
rare occasions condescended to notice one of the numerous
readings introduced by the name Sevir. Yet in the MSS.
the alternate reading entitled Sevir is given in the margin
of the text in the same way as the variant described by
the term Keri.

To establish the fact that Sevir is really a kind of
Keri I have only to mention that the two terms are not
unfrequently used interchangeably. The variant which is
described in some MSS. as Keri is in other MSS. termed
Sevir and vice versa. Thus the oldest Massorah preserved in
the St. Petersburg Codex gives us a List of seven passages
in which the textual reading or the Kethiv is b$ unto and the
Keri bv upon, x one of the seven instances is Ezekiel XIII 2,
against which the St. Petersburg Codex duly remarks in
the margin of the text the Keri is bV upon.'1 In turning,

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter X, § 514, Vol. I, p. 57.

♦p bv -

188 Introduction. [CHAI\ VIII.

however, to the margin of this passag'e in the editio princeps
of Jacob b. Chayim's Massoretic Bible the Massorah
remarks against it: "it is one of the five instances in which
the Sevir is bV upon." l It will thus be seen that the identical
variant which is called Keri by one School of Massorites
is called Sevir by another School.

Isa. XXX 32 affords a still more striking illustration
of the interchangeable use of the terms Sevir and Keri.
The Massorah registers three instances in which the textual
reading [= Kethiv] is H3 with her third person singular
feminine and the Sevir in each of the three passages
exhibits a different reading. In the passage before us the
Sevir is DS with them, the plural masculine. In the Massorah
Parva, however, on this very passage this variant is called
Keri and the St. Petersburg Codex, which has D3 with
her in the text, simply tells us that the Babylonians read
H3 with them.2 The same is the case with the other two
instances, viz. Jerem. XVII 24 and Ezek. XIV 4, which are
described as Seviriu in this Massoretic Rubric, but which
are respectively called Keri in the Massorah Parva.

I shall only adduce one more Massoretic Rubric to
illustrate the treatment which the Sevir has been subject
to on the part of the School of Massorites who, though
bound to give it as an integral portion of the Massorah,
have yet passed sentence against it. The Massorah gives
a Rubric of two passages where the Sevir is ^b before
the children of, and the textual reading is )}Qb before the
face of viz. Ps. LXXX 3 and Prov. IV 3-r> Instead of
Ps. LXXX 3, the Massorah preserved by Jacob b. Chayim

*bv vt^ao n »

- 'Kb^S1? fifi. The Authorised Version follows the Kethiv, the Revised
Version the Sevir or Keri.

■' *:%b "•'Tpl *gb pTSD '2 Comp. Massorah, letter 2, § 145, Vol. II,
p. 446.

CHAP. VIII.] Sevirin. 189

gives Job XIX 7 as one of the two passages and the
compilers of this Rubic do not call the instances Sevirin
at all, but simply head the Rubric Two verses are misleading. x
That is, the peculiar wording of the text is misleading, but
is not to be exchang*ed for the normal reading which one
would naturally expect. The most remarkable part, however,
is the fact that whilst Arundel Or. 16, both on Ps. LXXX 3
and Prov. IV 3, describes them respectively as one of the
four and one of the two verses where the Codices are
misleading,2 the Massorah Parva in the editio princeps on
Prov. IV 3 describes it as one of the Sevirin and the
Massorah in Harley 5710 — 11, which is a model Codex,
says it is one of the two passages where the Keri is
^D^ before the children of. This shows conclusively that
whilst one School of Massorites rejected the Sevir as mis-
leading, another School not only regarded it in the same
light as the Keri, but actually called it Keri.

From the Lists of variants between the Easterns and
Westerns we see that the Sevir was not simply an alter-
native reading, but it was actually the received reading of
the Babylonians. Thus U^b in Numb. XI 21, viz. "I will give
you flesh", which in the Sevir instead of OH*?, i. e. "I will
give them flesh", is actually the textual reading of the
Eastern School. Again in 1 Sam. XVIII 25 instead of the
simple *>3, the Sevir is DN'^D which is also the received
reading of the Easterns/1

Rut we have still further evidence that the Sevir
refers to the readings of actual MSS. and that these
variants are in many instances supported both by still

1 'JNDti '1D2 '2 Comp. The Massorah, letter B, § 145, Vol. II, 446.

♦nac pnz "Ttsfc "i n3sb, ^aa 'ids 'n ^b 2

3 This is attested by the official List of differences between the
Westerns and Easterns in the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 1009, in
Add. 15251 and in the editio princeps.

190 Introduction. [CHAP. VIII.

extant Codices and by the early editions as well as by
the ancient Versions. I must of necessity confine myself
to only a few examples in proof of this statement and
leave the student to examine for himself the value of each
of the hundreds of Sevirin which I have collected from
various MSS. and given in the margin of the text against
the respective words to which the Sevir refers.

In Genesis XLIX 13 the Sevir is IV unto, instead
of the textual reading bv upon. Accordingly the passage
ought to be rendered "and his border shall be or extend unto
Zidon", instead of "and his border shall be upon Zidon".
Now the Sevir which gives the intelligeable geographical
definition of the territory of Zebulun, is actually the textual
reading in many of the MSS. collated by Kennicott and
de Rossi. It is also the reading of the Samaritan text,
Onkelos in the editio princeps of the Bologna Pentateuch 1482 ;
the edition in the Ixar Pentateuch 1490, the edition in the
Lisbon Pentateuch 1461 &c., the Chaldee of the so-called
Jonathan, the Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate. The
Authorised Version too, exhibits the Sevir, whilst the
Revised Version follows the received text.

In Exod. VI 27 the received text has "to bring out
the children of Israel from Egypt", whilst the Sevir is
nn^ft pXtt "from the land of Egypt", as it is in the pre-
ceding verse, and the Sevir is not only the textual reading
in a number of MSS.,1 but is supported by the Samaritan,
the Septuagint and the Syriac.

In Exod. XXV 39 the received text is "of a talent
of pure gold (flfrg*) shall he make", the third person. The
Sevir here is flfeWP) "shaft thou make". The second person

1 When MSS. are quoted without specifying the Library in which
they are to be found and their number, the reference is to Kennicott's and
Rossi's collations published in Parma 1784 - 88 in 4 Volumes quarto, and
the supplement to these volumes also published in Parma in 1798.

CHA1WI1I.] Sevirin. 1 i»l

is not only demanded by the context; but the Sevir is
actually the textual reading in several MSS , is exhibited
in the Samaritan, in the Chaldee of Onkelos, in the Ixar
Pentateuch 1490, in the Septuagint and the Syriac.

The same is the case in Exod. XXVI 31 where the
received text has TWV\ the third person, i. e. "shall he
make". To avoid the incongruity of this isolated appearance
of the third person when all the other verbs throughout
the context are in the second person the Authorised
Version, which the Revised Version follows, converted
the active verb into the impersonal, i. e. shall it be made.
Others again who adhere to the literal meaning ushall he
make", refer it to the artificer who has suddenly to be
brought on the scene, though he is not mentioned at all
in these directions. The Sevir, however, is \WVR "thou shalt
make", which not only relieves the context from all unnatural
interpretations, but is the textual reading of several MSS.,
the Samaritan, the Chaldee in the Ixar Pentateuch 1490,
the Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate.

In Numb. XXXIII 8 the received text is "and they
journeyed (^Stt) from before Hahirotk" as the Revised
Version correctly renders it. But rfvnfl Hahiroth by itself
does not occur. In the only other three passages where this
proper name is to be found, it is the compound JYVnn 7S
Pi -hahiroth} It will be seen that one of the three instances
is in the very verse which immediately precedes this one,
and to which indeed the verse before us refers, by repeating
the name of the place from which the Israelites departed
after the encampment was broken up. This is the case
throughout the description of the journey ings in this chapter
where the verse, which gives the departures simply,
repeats the identical name of the place of encampment.

1 Comp. Exod. XIV 2, 9; Numb. XXXIII 7.

192 Introduction. [CHAP. VIII.

Now the Sevir is JYVnn ^30 from Pi-hahiroth. Here too
the Sevir is the textual reading in many MSS., in the
Samaritan, the Chaldee, the Septuagint, the Syriac and the
Vulgate. The translators of the Authorised Version who
adopted the Sevir, also retained the reading of the received
text and hence produced the hybrid rendering "and they
departed from before /V-hahiroth".

In Joshua I 15 instead of "which the Lord your God
giveth (Drib) them" the Sevir is "which the Lord your God
giveth (DDb) you", as it is in the second clause. Here again
the Sevir is the textual reading in many MSS., in the first
edition of the Prophets (Soncino 1485), the first edition of
the entire Bible (Soncino 1488), the third edition of the entire
Bible (Brescia 1494) and in the Chaldee. It is very remark-
able that in some MSS. in which the Sevir is the textual
reading, it is actually the subject of a Keri, directing it to
be read DH^ to them.

In 1 Kings I 18 the received text is "and now (\1F\V))
my lord the king" for which the Sevir has "and thou
(nfiJO) my lord the king". This Sevir is not only the textual
reading in numerous MSS., but is in the first edition of the
Prophets (Soncino 1485), the first edition of the entire
Hebrew Bible (Soncino 1488), the Complutensian Polyglot,
the Chaldee, the Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate.
It is rather remarkable that the Revisers adopted the
Sevir as the textual reading, and relegated the received
text into the margin. But though this Sevir is so strongly
supported by MSS. as the primitive reading, by the early
editions and the ancient Versions, yet the Massorah adds
to it pm DWBl they (i. e. the MSS. or Scribes) arc misled
thereby, that is in writing nflX thou instead of nfl? now.

In 2 Chron. XXI 2 Jehoshaphat is described as king
of Israel (^fcOttf? *T^E), whereas he was king of Judah
(comp. 1 Kings XXII 41 — 51). To get over this contra-

CHAP. VIII j Sevirin. 193

diction some have maintained- that Israel is here used in
the sense of Judah. But whatever may be the secondary
sense in which Israel is used, when it is combined with
^E king } it always denotes the sovereign of the ten
tribes who constituted the kingdom of Israel in opposition
to HTliT Itbft the king of Judah, whose kingdom consisted
of Judah and Benjamin. Here again the Sevir solves the
difficulty, inasmuch as it is iTTliT Judah, and here too the Sevir
is the textual reading in many MSS., in the first edition
of the Hagiographa (Naples i486 — 87), the Complutensian
Polyglot, the Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate. The
same applies to the Sevir in 2 Chron. XXVIII 19 which has
rniiT Judah, instead of ^JpfeP Israel, since Ahaz was king of
Judah and not of Israel. Here again the Sevir is the textual
reading in several MSS. and in the editio princeps of the
Hagiographa. The various readings are due to the fact
that originally the text simply was Yod (')and that this abbre-
viation was resolved into ^Nlfe^ Israel, by one School of
Massorites and into HTIPP Judah, by another School.

Without expanding" it into a separate Treatise it is
impossible for me to discuss in detail every one of the
three hundred and fifty Sevirin which I have succeeded in
collecting from the margins of various MSS. The few,
however, which I have analysed will sufficiently show the
correctness of my contention that according to the testi-
mony both of the MSS. and the ancient Versions the Sevirin
in many instances preserve the primitive textual readings.
As I have tried to give in every instance the MSS., the
editions and the ancient Versions, which support the Sevir
on every word where it occurs, the student will hence-
forth find it an easier task to test the value of this much-
neglected class of various readings.

Owing to the fact that the later redactors of the
Massorah looked upon the text as finally settled, they

194 Introduction. [CHAP. VIII.

regarded the Sevir with disfavour. Hence the various
readings preserved under the name Sevirin, have never been
properly collected. Like the official Keri, the extra-official
Sevir was originally given in the margin of the text against
the word for which it exhibits an alternative reading. Later
Scribes, however, collected and grouped together these
Seviriu under different headings or Rubrics. In this form
each Rubric comprises the number of instances in which
the same verb, noun, particle or proper name has the
same Sevir, with or without the editorial condemnatory
clause that it is misleading (PPEft). Jacob b. Chayim was
the first who arranged the groups alphabetically in his
alphabetical Massorah at the end of the fourth Volume
(Venice 1524 — 25). He, moreover, gives some of the groups
in the marginal Massorah on the words which are affected
by the Sevir. But he only succeeded in collecting altogether
about two hundred Seviriu which indeed is more than
could have been expected even from his untiring* industry
under the extraordinary difficulties which he had to en-
counter. Frensdorff1 has simply brought together and
alphabetically arranged under a separate Section the Rubrics
which are dispersed throughout Jacob b. Chayim's edition
of the Massorah. Although Frensdorff has appended to the
Sevirin very valuable notes correcting mistakes in the editio
pr biceps of the Massorah yet this indefatigable Massoretic
scholar has added no new instances. In my edition of the
Massorah I have been able to give a much larger number
which I collected from different MSS.2 The continuous
collation of new MSS., however, has enabled me to make
considerable additions to the Sevirin and the number
which now appears in the margin of my Massoretico-

1 Die Massora magna, Vol. I, p. 369 — 373, Hannover und Leipzig 1876.

2 Comp. The Massorah, letter D, Vol. II, p. 32 j. — 329.

CHAP. VIII ] Sevirin. i$b

critical edition of the Bible amounts to about 350, or nearly
more than half as much again as the number given by Jacob
b. Chayim. Nor can even this largely increased number be
considered exhaustive. Careful students of MSS. of the
Hebrew Bible will discover many new ones. The great
difficulty in detecting* them arises from the fact that
later redactors of the Massorah; owing to their hostility
to the Sevir, have often discarded the word T3D — Sevir
with the alternative reading, and simply substituted for it
'Pftft "2 ,'Wtl 'J two or three misleading, without giving the
variant. The passag*e which exhibits this nameless sentence
in some MSS. has to be carefully compared with the parallel
passage in other MSS., where the nature of the Sevir is
often given, because the particular Scribe was not possessed
by the same degree of hostility to the Sevirin.

As to the treatment of this important corpus of
various readings by modern editors of the so-called Mas-
soretic Bible, this is best illustrated by an examination of
the three editions which are now accepted by scholars.
(1) Hahn's edition of which a new issue has just been published
Leipzig 1893. (2) Letteri's edition published by the British
and Foreign Bible Society and (3) Dr. Baer's edition
of which Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and
King's are still due. Out of 350 Sevirin Hahn gives two
in the margin of his text, viz. 1 Sam. II 16 and XII 5 and
these two, Letteris simply repeats from Hahn's edition.
In Dr. Baer's edition not a single one of the Sevirin is
given in the margin of the text against the words to
which the Sevir refers, though this is its proper place by
the side of the official Keri as is the case in many of
the Massoretic MSS. Dr. Baer, however, notices many of
them in the Latin notes which form Appendices to the
different books which he edited. But he does not discuss
the value of the respective Sevirin, nor does he state

196 Introduction. [CHAP. VIII.

whether they are supported by MSS., the early editions
or the ancient Versions. By placing them in the margin
of the text, which is a new feature in my edition, I hope
to enable the student easily to see the extent and value
of this important corpus of various reading's.

Chap. IX.
The Western and Eastern Recensions.

As early as the third century we are told that
there existed differences between the ('NrttlE =) Westerns
or Palestinians and the ('K31I7JS =) Easterns or Babylonians
which affected not only the orthography, but the exegesis
of certain words. We know now that many of the deviat-
ing renderings of the Septuagint and the Chaldee Version
of the Prophets are due to the variations which obtained
in these Schools of textual critics.1

An instructive incident affecting the difference in the
orthography of the text, which obtained in these Schools
is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud, where it is related
that in Jerusalem the Scribes arbitrarily appended or
omitted the He local. To illustrate this fact it is said that
they wrote nO^EIT instead of nbWP, likewise ,12102: instead
of p0¥ and l^n instead of p>n {Jerusalem Megilla I g).~
The Samaritans who adhered to the ancient tradition
followed the same practice, which elicited the following
censure from Simon b. Elasar: "I said to the Samaritan
Scribes: What made you commit this error that you have
not adopted the principle of R. Nehemiah?" For it is taught
in the name of R. Nehemiah that every word which should
have Lamed at the beginning and has is not, must have

1 Comp. Geiger in the Kerem Chemed IX 69: Urschrtft und Ueber-
setzuHgen der Bibcl, p. 481 etc.

.'B 'x n'raa tswn ran rows

198 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

He appended to it at the end, as for instance TX£T\ for
pr6, likewise PITIW for *VVVb and nDWD for JTDID^
(Jerusalem Jehamoth I 6).1

It is very remarkable that though the Samaritan
Pentateuch still exhibits some of the peculiarities against
which R. Simon here raises his voice, the instances adduced
to show the arbitrariness of the Jerusalem Scribes do not
exist in the present recension of the Hebrew text. Passages
of nJB*n where it ought to be pY) do not occur now,
nor have we nB^tPTT which should be D^tPlY. The only
five instances in which nft^tPIT occurs (i Kings X 2;
2 Kings IX 28; Isa. XXXVI 2; Ezek. VIII 3; 2 Chron.
XXXII 9),2 the He local is absolutely wanted, inasmuch
as it takes the place of the Lamed at the beginning. In
this instance, therefore, as is the case with many other
features, the process of uniformity has successfully been
carried through in so far as the Massoretic text is con-
cerned.

The real nature and extent of the variations between
these two Schools of textual critics we must learn from
the instances which have been transmitted to us in the
official Lists and in the margin of the MSS. against the
words on which the variants are recorded. Before entering,,
however, into an examination of these Schools it is
necessary to remark that Madinchai (^Nimtt =) the Easterns
is the name for the Jews who resided in Babylon because
Babylon lies to the east of Palestine in contradistinction
to the Maarbai ('JOIPft =) the Westerns which denotes the
inhabitants of Palestine. The term Eastern or Madinchai,
however, denotes the principal School of Massorites which

^m.rvfcnD '-c \yrn prut n^n twvh tcb an: h£ btvo "nsiab ti&i: *
isian k'h ib jit; i8? \m *6i m^nna Yfcfc yw kvto iai bz rt6m ,tai auo
♦'i 'k nw tnrroiB wiab rmvw yysb nain y\r\b paa

- Comp. The Massqrah, letter \ § 619 Vol. I, p. 740

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 199

was divided into several subordinate Schools; one of these
is often quoted by the name Nchardai (^lirii) and the
other Sural (WlD) after the names of the cities where the
respective Schools were held. The MSS. as a rule and
the printed texts exhibit the Maarbai or Western re-
cension.

The Pentateuch. — In the examination and analysis
of these variations it is necessary to discuss those which
occur in each of the three great divisions of the Bible
separately, since some of the official Lists extend to one
or two of these divisions and all of them omit the Pentateuch
altogether. This omission, however, which is entirely due
to the first compiler, has given rise to the assertion on
the part of Elias Levita that there is not a single difference
between the Easterns and the Westerns in the Pentateuch.1
But this learned expositor of the Massorah, must have
overlooked the passage in the editio princeps of Jacob b.
Chayim's Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah in praise of
which he himself composed a Hebrew poem which is
appended to the fourth volume. In the Massorah Magna
on Gen. XLVI 20 it is distinctly stated that Vp ^l^lfl Tubal-
Cain (Gen. IV 22) constitutes one of the differences between
the Easterns and Westerns, the former read it as one word
PP^ID Tubalcain, and the latter read it in two words
Vp by\F\ Tubal Cain.2

But though the official Lists do not give the differences
which existed in these two Schools of textual critics as
far as the Pentateuch is concerned, these variants are
given in the margin of different MSS. against the respective
passages. It is from these scattered marginal remarks as well
as from sundry Massoretic Rubrics that I have collected

1 Comp. Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 261, ed. Ginsburg, London 1867.

.ppi rn: pba pn ^mr&b >\"^ yra \nrt xn'ra "xpihe1? p bz'r -

200 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

the variants in this division of the Hebrew Scriptures.
From these sources we learn that the differences between
the Eastern and Western recensions are both far more
numerous and far more important than those contained in
the official Lists.

A few illustrations will suffice to establish this fact.
According to the Maarbai (^NDIUft) recension which we
follow there is no difference in our text between the
vowel-points in "Uftft from him, third person masculine and
from us, first person plural. It is in both instances pointed
^ftft. According to the Madinchai ('NrD^ft), however, it
is ^tt Raphe in all the twenty-three passages in which it
denotes from us, the first person plural.1 This fact which
we have hitherto only known from MSS. is of double
importance. It is in the first place a valuable contribution
to Hebrew Grammar, and in the second place it shows
that the variations between the Westerns and Easterns
extended to the Pentateuch, since nine out of the twenty-
three instances occur in the Pentateuch.2

Of equal importance is the Massorah Parva in Codex
No. 13 in the Vienna Imperial and Royal Court Library
on Gen. IV 22. We are here told that according to the
Maarbai SSTiVa Beth-el, like pfr^fl Tubal-caiii, r\)fi-1Xn
Hazer-maveth, Ifti^'VG Chedor-laomer, and IV'bZ Gal-ed, is
in two words, whereas according to the Madinchai it is ^NfVS
Bethel one word.3 As this name is to be found no fewer
than seventy times in the Hebrew Scriptures it will at
once be apparent that its correct orthography is essential,

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter ti, §§ 549, 550, Vol. II, page 234.

2 Comp. Gen. Ill 22; XXIII 6; XXVI t6; Exod. I 9; XIV 12;
Numb. XIII 31; XXXI 49; Deut. I 28; II 36

pi ,rna nan pi p1?^ '5 "xz^vftb ,'pi ra rfea *nn pp bsin itriHfcb 3

♦nj? bz pi ,iwb -ted pi ,bx rrn

CHAP. IX. | The Western and Eastern Recensions. 201

especially since Dr. Baer has printed it in one word
throughout his text.

The first passage in which this name is mentioned is
Gen. XII 8 where it occurs twice. Now besides the
Massoretic declaration in the Vienna Codex No. 13 the
following MSS. in the British Museum and early editions
have it ^K"IV3 Beth-el in two words: Orient. 4445 which is
the oldest MS. known at present; Orient. 2201 dated A. D.
1246; Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252;
Add. 15282; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient.
2365; the editio princeps of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482;
the Ixar edition 1490; the Lisbon edition 1491; the second
edition of the entire Hebrew Bible, Naples 1491 — 93 ; the third
edition, Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot; the first
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 15 17; the quarto Bible,
Venice 1521; and the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible
with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. Three
out of the ten MSS., viz. Orient. 2201; Harley 1528; and
Orient. 2350 have it actually in two lines, i. e. VP3 Beth
at the end of one line and b$, el at the beginning of the
next line. This is also the case in the Complutensian
Polyglot. When it is added that Add. 15282 and Orient.
2696 have it ^K Nib with the following Massorah nrx
N3T£ Nib the accent in Nib is Mercha, and that the third
and fourth editions of the Bible (Naples 1491 — 93; Brescia
1494) have it here with Mercha, the evidence of its being
in two words in accordance with the Maarbai is fully
established.

It is, however, to be remarked that in the case of
^NTP3 Beth-el as is the case with other words with respect
to which the Western and Eastern recensions differ, some
MSS. follow the Madinchai reading. Hence ^XJV3 Bethel
in one word is to be found in Arund. Orient. 2; Add. 9401 ;
Add. 1 5451; Harley 5710 — 11; Orient. 4227 and in the first

202 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

edition of the Hebrew Bible, Soncino 1488. But as we,
including Dr. Baer, profess to follow the Maarbai, the de-
liberate ejection of ^XTV3 Beth-el from the text, especially
when with one exception it is in all the early editions,
is to be deprecated.

The treatment of *l£X^-T73 Chedor-laomer, the fourth
name in the Rubric which registers the variations between
these two Schools of textual critics, is still more remarkable
and illustrative of the fact that the Maarbai recension is
not uniformly followed in all the MSS. or editions. As
this name occurs five times and in the same Section, and
moreover as it is treated differently by the same MSS.
and editions, it will be more convenient to examine each
passage separately.

(1) In Gen. XIV 1 where it first occurs, the following
MSS. and editions have it 1£$J^-TT3 Chedor-laomer in two
words according to the Maarbai: Arund. Orient. 2 dated
A. D. 1216; Harley 5710 — 11; Add. 15451 ; Orient. 4227;
Orient. 2365; the editio prmceps of the Pentateuch, Bologna
1482; the first edition of the entire Bible, Soncino 1488; the
third edition, Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot; the
first edition of the Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 15 17;
the Venice quarto 1521, and the first edition of the Bible
with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. It is to
be remarked that Harley 5710 — 11 which is one of the
most beautiful and accurate MSS. and is evidently a Standard
Codex, has it not only in two words, but in two lines,
YT3 Chedor is at the end of one line and *\ty$b laomer

T : v T

begins the next line.

The following MSS. and editions have it 1ftj^>TT3
Chedorlaomer in one word according to the Madinchai:
Orient. 4445 which is the oldest MS. known at present;
Orient. 2201 dated A. D. 1246; Add. 9401 dated A. D. 1286;
Harley 1528; Add. 15251; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient.

CHAF\ IX | The Western and Eastern Recensions. 203

2350; Orient. 2626—28; the Lisbon Pentateuch 1491 and
the second edition of the entire Bible, Naples 1491-93.
It is also to be added that Add. 15251, which has it in
one word has against it in the margin here Kin nfft =
one word.

(2) In Gen. XIV 4 the following MSS. and editions
have it *l£XJ^"TT3 Chedor-laomer in two words in accordance

T T -

with the Western recension: Arund. Orient. 2; Harley
5710 — 1 1 ; Add. 15451 ; Orient. 4227; Orient. 2365; theBologna
Pentateuch 1482; the first and third editions of the Bible,
Soncino 1488, Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot;
the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis
15 17; and the Venice quarto 1521. Moreover Orient. 4227 as
also the editions of 1494, 15 17 and 1521 have it in two lines,
viz. *H5 Chedor at the end of one line and TBJJ^ laomer
at the beginning of the next line.

The following MSS. and editions have it *18$^*H3
Chedorlaomer in one word in accordance with the Eastern
recension: Orient. 4445; Orient. 2201; Add. 9401; Harley
1528; Add. 1 5251; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350;
the Lisbon edition of the Pentateuch 1491; the second
edition of the Bible 1491 — 93 and the first edition of the
Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim
1524 — 25. It is remarkable that Jacob b. Chayim who has
it in two words in all the other four passages has it in
one word in this solitary instance.

(3) In Gen. XIV 5 the following MSS. and editions
have it *1DJJ^"TJ3 Chedor-laomer the reading of the Maarbai:
Arund. Orient. 2; Add. 9401; Harley 5710 — 11; Add. 15451;
Add. 15250; Orient. 4227; Orient. 2365; theBologna edition of
the Pentateuch 1482; the first and third editions of the Bible,
Soncino 1488, Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot;
Felix Pratensis Rabbinic Bible 1 5 1 7 ; the Venice quarto Bible
1 521; and the first edition of the Bible with the Massorah

204 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. — Add. 9401 and the editions
of 1494, 15 1 7 and 1 52 1 have it in two lines. Now on
comparing the MSS. quoted under Nos. 1 and 2 it will be
seen that Add. 940 1, which follows the Eastern recension
in these two instances, not only exhibits in the passage
before us the Western reading, but has it in two lines,
"113 Chedov at the end of one line and m'yb laomer at the

T : T

beginning of the next line.

The following MSS. and editions exhibit the Eastern
recension "lftjj^l^ Chedorlaomer in one word: Orient. 4445;
Orient. 2201; Harley 1528; Add. 1525 1; Orient. 2348; Orient.
2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2626 — 28; the Lisbon edition
of the Pentateuch 1491; and the second edition of the
Bible, Naples 1491 — 93.

(4) In Gen. XIV 9 the same MSS. and editions follow
respectively the Western and Eastern recensions as ex-
hibited in No. 3. Here again Add. 9401 not only follows
the Western reading, but has it in two separate lines as
in No. 3, though in Nos. 1 and 2, the Eastern reading is
adopted.

(5) Gen. XIV 17 which is the fifth instance where
this name occurs, exhibits no peculiarities, the same six
MSS. and the same seven early editions which follow the
Western recension in No. 4 follow it here, and the same
seven MSS. and two early editions have the Eastern reading.

Delitzsch in his Preface to Dr. Baer's edition of the
Five Megilloth, prints a Massorah which reverses the
vSchools whence this divergent reading emanates. It is the
Eastern recension we are here told which reads 18JJ7"*n3
Chedor-laomer in two words, whilst the Western reads its
1ftj?^YT3 Chedorlaomer in one word.1 As this Rubric was

T : T :

pmn hKnn&^ ,*ns^stto h-twdi wrarbv ,nar^ia ,mrb& fbx 1

Jp'TD mil nbb VGHBISb ,pTD pf?a Comp. Preface to the rvtoa wan, p. v,
Leipzig 1886.

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 205

communicated to Delitzsch by Dr. Baer and no place nor
number is given where the MS. is to be found I can
not place absolute confidence in Dr. Baer's Massoretic
communications from my experience of the manner in which
he manipulates Massorahs. If this Rubric, however, is a
faithful transcript from a MS. it only shows what I have
often contended for, that similar Massorahs are not only
based upon distinct recensions of the text, but that the
same Rubric or reading is sometimes transmitted to us in
the names of opposite Schools of textual critics.

As reg*ards the remaining thirty- one variations which
I have given in the notes, they are as follows:

(i) Gen. X 19 is in Or. 2696, British Museum.

(2) „ XXVIII 3 is in the Madrid Codex No. 1 ;

and in Add. 15251, British
Museum.
XLIII 29 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. 1 — 3.
XVII 4 is in Norzi's Minchath Shai on
this passage.
„ 16 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. 1 — 3.
VII 16 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. 1 — 3.
XII 6 is in the St. Petersburg Codex
datedA.D.9i6,Jer.XXVi2.

XIII 4 is in the National Library Paris
Codex No. 1—3.

„ 7 is in the National Library Paris
Codex No. 1 — 3.

XIV 12 is in the National Library Paris
Codex No. 1 — 3.

XVI 33 is in Norzi's Minchath Shai on
this passage.

\i)

(4)

Exod.

(5)

(6)

Levit

(7)

(8)

(9)

(io)

(»)

206 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

(12) Levit. XXVII 24 is in Orient. 2626, British Mu-
seum; and in the Codex
Leicester, fol. 62 b.
I 48 is in Orient. 2626.
XI 21 is in de Rossi in loco.
XIII 6 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. 1 — 3.
XXII 37 is in the National Library Paris
Codex No. 1 — 3.
XXVI 33 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. 1 — 3.
XXX 1 3 is in the National Library Paris
Codex No. 1 — 3.
XXXII 7 is in Harley 5710 — 11, British

Museum.
XXXIV 19 is in the National Library Paris
Codex No. 1 — 3.
I11 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. 1 — 3.
„ 28 is in the National Library Paris
Codex No. 1 — 3.
XVI 3 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. 1 —3.
XVII 10 is in the National Library Paris
Codex No. 1 — 3.
„ 12 is in Orient. 4445, British Mu-
seum.
XIX 16 is in the National Library Paris
Codex No- 1 — 3.
XXXI 27 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. 1 — 3.
XXXII 6 is in de Rossi in loco.

„ 35 is in the National Library Paris
Codex No. 1—3.

(13)

Numb.

(14)

(15)

(■6)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(2.)

Deut.

(22)

(23)

(-'4)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 207

(30) Deut. XXXII 39 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. 1 — 3.

(31) „ XXXIII 5 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. 1 — 3.
The Former Prophets. — For this division of the
Hebrew Bible I have collated the following official Lists:

(1) The St. Petersburg Codex B 19 a dated A. D. 1009 which
gives the Lists for all the Prophets and the Hagiographa.

(2) Codex No. 1 in the Madrid University Library dated
A. D. 1280. This MS. gives the List for Kings only; the
variations in Joshua, Judges and Samuel are given in the
Margin on the respective passages, thus forming part of
the Massorah Parva. (3) The beautiful little MS. in 16 vo-
lumes 121110 dated A. D. 1487 in the Madrid Royal Library
which, with the exception of Psalms and Chronicles, gives
the Lists for the Prophets and the Hagiographa. (4) The
MS. kindly lent me by the late Dr. Merzbacher of Munich
which gives the Lists for the Prophets and Hagiographa.
(5) Bodley MS. No. 10 — 11 which also gives the Lists for
the Prophets and the Hagiographa. (6) Arund. Orient. 16
British Museum which gives the Lists at the end of each
book and (7) Add. 15251 which gives the Lists for the
Former Prophets only. These MS. Lists together with the
Lists in the editio prineeps in Jacob b. Chayim's Bible with
the Massorah I have carefully collated. Of course there
must be other MSS. which have these Lists, but to which
I have not had access.

With the exception of more or less clerical errors these
Lists are simply copies of one another and add very little
to the extensive differences which we know from the MSS.
themselves, have existed between the Western and Eastern
recensions of the text. The slavishness with which the
Scribes copied one another may be seen from the fact
that the Scribe of the List dated A. "D. 1009 has the instance

208 Introduction. . [CHAP. IX.

from Ezra X 3 out of its proper place, since he put it as
the last in the List after Neh. XIII 10 and all the other
MSS. and even the editio princeps follow suit in this
disorder.

Joshua. — In Joshua I have obtained four new variations
between these two Schools from the MSS., viz. VIII 16;
X 1; XXIII 15 and XXIV 15. The first is from Codex
Xo. 1 — 3 in the National Library Paris, and Add. 1525 1,
British Museum, whilst the remaining three are in the Paris
Codex alone. Dr. Baer gives the following six variations:

(r) in 4 npi sto rra 'HJab

(2) iv 18 *npi sns rrbv2 'iitob

(3) vi 15 np rr6?3 ,rnr nitoa 'rtob

(4) vii 1 ^nira 'aiJob ,bKn& *xn "-wb

(5) XV 22 |*6l2 '2 STJflSI 'HB^

(6) XV 29 pE '2 IJ5FI-^«1 "l^

These I have not adopted because I could not verify
them. Those variations which Dr. Baer in his List ascribes to
the Easterns and which I could verify, viz. »*^p D171 ,2*fl!D D*JT1
X-*V 53? belong to the ordinary A'^r/ and Kethiv. It is so
in the Paris Codex No. 1 — 3 which is dated A. D. 1286;
in Harley 5710— 11; Arund. Orient. 16; Harley 5720; Add.
1 525 1 and in the edifto princeps.

Two, viz. miDltPn VI 20 and l^lfl-^jn XV 30; XIX 4
in two words, are simply various readings. The former is in
the text in Orient. 2201 which is one of the best MSS. and
is dated A. D. 1246; in the editio princeps; the first edition
of the entire Bible, Soncino 1488; the Former Prophets,
Pesaro 151 1; the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible by
Felix Pratensis 15 17; and in the first edition of the Bible
with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. The latter
is in Harley 5710 — 11 and in all the early editions.

As to VIII 13 which Dr. Baer says is TX^> of the city,
in both parts of the verse according to the Westerns, but

CHAP. IX. ] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 200

according to the Easterns it is only the Kethiv or the
textual reading which has it in both clauses, whilst the
Keri is ^vb of the city,1 no official Lists, MSS., Massorahs,
or early editions which I have seen have any variation on
this verse. Both the MSS. and the Lists which exhibit any
variation at all, not only mark it on yvb of the city, in
verse 12, but vary in their statements as to the nature
of the difference and as to the School to which it
belongs. This will be seen from the following analysis
of the Massorah Parva: (1) Orient. 2201 which is dated
A. D. 1246 and Harley 1528 have in the text in VIII 12
yyb of the city, and in the margin against it 'p *>V_b the Keri
is of Ai. The same is the case in Harley 5710 — 11 where
the Massorah Parva has against this verse ip^> the Resh is
to be cancetled = the Keri is *>yb of Ai, thus treating it as
an ordinary Keri of the Western School. (2) Arund. Orient. 16
and Add. 1545 1 which are superb MSS., have no Keri at all,
but simply remark against it in verse 12 'Vtefi! "T four times
misleading, which is the condemnatory appellation for Sevirin.
Equally certain is verse 12 indicated in the official Lists,
which tabulate the differences between the Westerns
and the Easterns. I must first notice the fact that the
two oldest official Lists, viz. the St. Petersburg Codex
dated A. D. 1009 and the Madrid Codex No. 1, record
no difference whatever either in verse 12 or 13. The Lists,
however, which register this difference not only assign it
to verse 12, but remark that according to the Westerns it
is Tl6 of the city, in two verses both in the Kethiv and in
the Keri, whilst according to the Easterns the Kethiv in
these two verses is TU4? of the city [or Tl? city'], but the
Keri is tyb of Ai or >J? Ai, viz. verses 12 and 16.2 To the

s*ip tyb ,nro *rth 'nab ,pvssn prrnn ,*ipi std -Ppb "iptib '
•'T '9b 'na -vtf1? 'rttfc t,mp pi -p$b 're ppwa a nn^ 2

210 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

same effect are the official Lists in Arund. Orient. 16; Add.
1525 1 ; Bodley No. 1 1 ; the MS. in the Royal Library Madrid;
Codex Merzbacher; and in the editio princeps. Having altered
pplD-D "2 two verses, into pIDDl piVnn in both clauses of
the verse, Dr. Baer was obliged to palm it on verse 13, since
it is the only verse in this Section where *VVb of the city
occurs twice.

Dr. Baer gives DfVl^l Josh. X 26, as the passage which
constitutes the difference between the Westerns and Easterns,
whereas the official List in the St. Petersburg Codex dated
A. D. 1009 gives Dm "D^ D^BH ^3 n*0 as the catchword
which is XI 17 and the official Lists in the other MSS.
confirm it.

In three instances, viz. VIII 12; XVIII 14 and XXII 18
the Chaldee exhibits the Eastern recension. On VIII 12 my
note V'tn pi is to be corrected into 'im V"D DnDD fl¥pM pi.

Judges. — In Judges I have been able to add from
Codex No. 1 — 3 in the National Library Paris the important
fact that verses 29 and 30 in chapter VIII are one verse
according to the Easterns.

This implies a different accentuation as well as different
numbering of the verses in this book. In two instances,
viz. I 21 and XX 36 the Chaldee exhibits the Eastern
readings. Of the five passages which Dr. Baer includes
in his List one (VIII 22) is a Sevir, and the other four
(VI 25; X 4; XV 5; XX 20) are various readings exhibited
in the text of our recensions.

Samuel. — In Samuel I have only found one new
variation which constitutes a difference between the Westerns
and Easterns, viz. 1 Sam. XVIII 25 where the Oriental reading
is rfy*)V defective. This is given in the official List in Arund.
Orient. 16. As regards the other difference in this verse,
the oldest List in the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 1009
distinctly gives it as follows:

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 211

'whs mbny mkbs "q Tab
mb-r nxas-DK ^2 'nab

It will thus be seen that the difference between these
two Schools is the absence and presence of the particle
~DX in the text. This is confirmed by the List in Add. 15251
and in the editio princeps. Dr. Baer's statement; therefore,
that the Eastern variation is

is to be rejected.

Equally wrong is Dr. Baer's manipulation of a supposed
difference between these two Schools in i Sam. XIX 23
which he formulates as follows:

•npi 3TD ni^a Tab %
♦np nros &rti rvaa 'nab

All the best MSS. and early editions give this Kethiv
and 2&W as belonging to the Western recension. They
have JVDH in the text and against it in the margin
'p H1^3. This is the casein Orient. 2201; Harley 5710 — 1 1 ;
Arund. Orient 16; Add. 15451 ; and Add. 15251, all of which
are Standard Codices. The second and third editions of
the entire Bible (Naples 1491—93; Brescia 1494); the Former
Prophets, Pesaro 151 1 and the Rabbinic Bible by Felix
Pratensis 1517, as well as the quarto Bible, Venice 152 1
exhibit JV132 in the text with the vowel points of the
Keri which is their usual way of indicating the Keri, whilst
the editio princeps of the Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah
by Jacob b. Chayim 1524—25 has fVUD in the text and
against it in the margin 'p f)V3D.

As to the other eleven instances which Dr. Baer ex-
hibits in his List as constituting variations between these
two Schools, five I was unable to verify (1 Sam. XIX 13;
XX 33; 2 Sam. XIII 5; XXII 45; XXIII 31) and, therefore,

hesitated to accept them. The six instances, however, which

212 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

I could test do not belong to this category of variations.
They are given on the authority of Codex Reuchlin No. 2
where the Massorah Parva' s remark against each of them
is as follows:

(I) I

Sam.

XIX 13

™ ~bv ritoarr^K

(2)

XXII 6

Fba iei? inx

(3)

XXIV 4

rba ~bx- -pirrh$

(4)

XXVIII 19

r^B ptai<D|

(5) 2

Sam.

III 29

rbe mbv) hs-bx]

(6)

„

VII 25

tSb nriKi nnyi

It will thus be seen that Dr. Baer takes ^Q or
Xrtfl^D as the equivalent for \srD7tt = Eastern, which it
most assuredly is not. The expression is of frequent
occurrence in the Massorah and it simply denotes there is
a difference of opinion here, or a variation, which may either
be exhibited in the MSS. or in special Codices revised
by known textual critics. Thus on ffov burnt offerings
Exod. XXIV 5 the Massorah Parva remarks fttfy TO^Q
a variation D'ibV, which simply means that in some MSS.
it is plene. On rfrjj? wagons Numb. VII 3 the Massorah
Parva explains this technical expression by adding: "It is
three times defective in this Section [Numb. VII 3, 6, 8],
but there is a difference of opinion about it since some
say it is here JTfclXJ plene". x It will thus be seen that the
Massorah itself explains J^S or WOI^D by some say, or
some hold a different opinion, i. e. certain textual critics
say it is plene, or some MSS. exhibit the plene form.

On \VX% venison Gen. XXVII 3 for which the Keri
is T>¥ the Massorah in Add. 15251 remarks iT3 IP^OI, but
there is a variation here, that is some MSS. or textual
critics have no Keri. That this is the meaning of y*b% is,
moreover, evident from the expanded Massorah in the

jnbw "max "Q st^p 'iwfcw 'en •; >

CHAP. IX. | The Western and Eastern Recensions. 21.'}

edtHo priiiccps on this very passage which is as follows:
"the He is superfluous, but it is a variant of R. Nachman",1
i. e. according to this textual critic the He is not redundant,
but is as in Josh. IX n and Ps. LXXVIII 25. Here we
have a clear proof that the simple JP^>Q in one MS. is in
another Massorah described as a variation of a particular
redactor. Unless, therefore, ;p^fi is followed by the name
of the individual or of the School to whom or to which the
variation belongs it is most unjustifiable to take it as an
equivalent for 'Nnyift the Eastern School?

The following two readings of the Madinchai are ex-
hibited in the text of the Chaldee 1 Sam. IV 15 and 2 Sam.
XIII 33. In the variations of these two Schools I have
inadvertently omitted 2 Sam. VI 19 where the Westerns
read t^Xtt^ and the Easterns ttfX without Lamed?

Kings. — In Kings I have added the following five
variations which are not contained in the editio princeps.
(1) 1 Kings III 12 which is given in the Massorah Parva in
Orient. 2626 — 28. (2) III 26 which is in the List of the
St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 1009. (3) XVI 19 which is in
the List of the same Codex. (4) XX 43 which is in the
St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 9164 and (5) 2 Kings X 31
which is in the List of Add. 1525 1. I can now add a sixth
instance, viz. U\Vbbvy and their children 2 Kings VIII 12
which according to the Easterns is plene, as will be seen
from Massorah Parva in Harley 5710—11 on Ps. XVII 14.

♦jam a*n ™^b ^dk 'w \-i !

2 If any other proof were needed I have simply to point out the fact that
"£r in 1 Sam. XXII 6 which is described as 3^3 is actually given as K"D
in Harley 5 7 10 — II, whilst ~by) 2 Sam III 29 is not only one of the Sevirin,
but is exhibited in the text of Arund. Orient. 16.

:{ Comp. The Massorah, letter K, § 442a, Vol. I, p. 52.

4 Comp. the St. Peterburg Codex on Ezek. XIII 2, and The Massorah,
letter X, § 514, Vol. I, p. 57.

214 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

The Massorah here tells us that according to the Easterns
DiT^U? with the suffix third person plural masculine is plene
in all the four instances in which it occurs,1 viz. 2 Kings
VIII 12; Isa. XIII 16; Hos. XIV .; and Ps. XVII 14. In
our or Western recension, however, it is only plene in
one instance (Ps. XVII 14). Hence we obtain three more
passages than we have hitherto known (2 Kings VIII 12;
Isa. XIII 16; and Hos. XIV 1) which exhibit differences
between the Eastern and Western recensions.

I. From these MS. Lists and the MSS. themselves I
have also been able to make the following corrections.
Though the official Lists in the St. Petersburg Codex of
A. D. 1009, in the Madrid Codex of the Royal Library, in
Bodley No. 1 1, in the Merzbacher MS., in Add. 15251 British
Museum and in the editio princeps distinctly state that
fW*ttf? 1 Kings III 20 is plene according to the Westerns
and that according to the Eastern School it is \1W\
defective, yet some of the best MSS., and all the early
editions have the defective form in the text. But as we
invariably follow the Western recension I have given the
plene in the text and the variant in the margin in accordance
with the uniform practice. The MSS. and the editions,
however, demonstrate the fact to which I have often had
occasion to advert that the Eastern reading and not the
Western is not unfrequently exhibited both in the MSS.
and editions.

II. The variation which the Massorah Parva in the
editio princeps places against 1 Kings XVI 1 belongs to
verse 12 of the chapter in question. This is not only
attested by the official Lists in the MSS., but by the List in
the editio princeps itself where the proper catchword is
given nor TMP1 'Vtlb = XVI 12.

CHAP. IX. | The Western and Eastern Recensions. 215

III. In i Kings XVII 4 the St. Petersburg Codex
of A. D. 1009 reverses the variation, giving Qttf there, as
the Western recension and nfittf with the paragogic He as
the Eastern reading. But as all the other Lists distinctly
state the contrary there must be a clerical error in the
St. Petersburg List.

In four passages the Chaldee exhibits the text of the
Eastern recension, viz. 1 Kings XVI 12; 2 Kings XVIII 37;
XIX 9, 20.

The Latter Prophets. — With the exception of Add.
1 525 1 which gives the Lists for the Former Prophets only,
all the Lists which I have collated for the Former Prophets
I also examined for this division of the Bible. I have,
moreover, carefully collated the text of the Babylonian or
St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 916 which embraces this
portion of the Hebrew Scriptures and which is supposed to
exhibit the text of the Eastern recension. Whether this claim
put forward on the part of Biblical scholars is justified or
not will be seen from a comparison of the Eastern variants
as transmitted to us in the official Lists and in the Margins
of the MSS. with the readings in the text of this Codex.

Isaiah. — From the official List in the St. Petersburg
Codex dated A. D. 1009 I have been able to add two new
instances, viz. Ill 24 and XIV 26. The first instance shows
that rnjn girdle Isa. Ill 24, which according to the Westerns
is defective, ought to be in the text, since we follow the
Maarbai recension. This reading is actually in the text in
some of the best MSS., viz. Orient. 2201 dated A. D. 1246;
Harley 5710 — 11; Harley 1528; Add. 15250; and Orient.
2626 — 28, as well as in the Complutensian Polyglot. Arund.
Orient. 16, however,1 Add. 15451; Add. 15251; Add. 15252,

1 This MS. remarks on it in the Massorah Parva 'bft '2 = twice plene,
but as ."Hin is unquestionably defective in the second instance where it occurs,

"216 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

as well as all the early editions with the exception of the
Complutensian Polyglot, have fTYfofJ plene in the text which
is the Eastern reading. We have here, therefore another
proof of the fact, so often adverted to, that the MSS. and
the early editions which profess to follow the readings of
the Maarbai not unfrequently exhibit the Madinchai re-
cension.

From the Massorah Parva in Orient. 2201 I have also
been able to increase the number by three more instances.
On Isa. XXVII 8 this Massorah informs us that the Baby-
lonians — Easterns read rni3, that they read ^TX^ft in
XXXVII 36 and that they read rrrTDB in XLVIII 13. I am
now able to add a sixth instance, viz. DJT^in Isa. XIII 16
which according to the Easterns is DiT^iPI plene.1 Orient.
2201; Harley 5710 — 11; and Add. 1545 1, as well as the
Lisbon edition of Isaiah 1492 and the Complutensian Polyglot
have the plene form in the text, thus affording another
illustration of the fact that the Eastern recension is often
exhibited in the text of some of the best MSS. and editions
which profess to follow the Western recension.

As regards the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 916
which some critics maintain exhibits the text of the Oriental
recension, this can best be tested by a comparison of the
Eastern readings transmitted to us in the official Lists and
in the Massorahs with the readings in this MS. In this
examination I shall confine myself more especially to Isaiah
since the result of this investigation will equally apply to
Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets which constitute
the rest of this remarkable Codex.

The official Lists and the MSS. give thirty-one passages
in Isaiah in which the Easterns have a different reading

viz. 2 Kings III 21 and, moreover, as it is so written in this very Codex
'f?&5 "2 is manifestly a mistake.

1 See above pp. 213, 214.

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 217

from the Westerns. Of these the St. Petersburg Codex in
question exhibits only fifteen/1 whereas in the other sixteen
instances this Codex follows the Western readings.'2

From the fact that the St. Petersburg Codex has half
the number of the Eastern readings, no valid argument can
be adduced that the MS. exhibits the text of the Eastern
recension, especially when it is borne in mind that even
the acknowledged Western MSS. often exhibit in the text
the readings of the Eastern School. All that can be fairly
inferred is that at this early period the Massorites and
those textual critics who were engaged in the redaction
of MSS. did not as yet minutely classify the various read-
ings of the two Schools.

Besides the fifteen variations in the St. Petersburg
Codex which happen to agree with the Eastern recension,
it has no fewer than two hundred other readings which
differ from the Western text in Isaiah alone. As far as
I know no critic has as yet been bold enough to assert
that these two hundred exhibit the differences between
the Eastern recension and the Western text. With such a
vast number of variations it would indeed be surpassing
strange if a small proportion did not agree with the Eastern
School the text of which was only in the process of being
separated from the recension of the Western School.

Codex Heidenheim remarks in the Massorah Parva
on Isa. XX 2 that it is two verses according to the Easterns,3
yet the St. Petersburg Codex not only reads it as one
verse, but emphatically states in the Massorah that the

1 Isa. VI 13; XIV 26; XXIII 12, 12; XXVII 6; XXXVII 9;
XLIV 27; XLIX 5; LI 7; LIII 4; LIX 4, 9, II ; LXIV 6; LXVI 2.

2 Isa. Ill 17, 24; XIII 16; XIV 19; XX 2; XXI 14; XXIII 12;
XXXVII 8; XXXVIII 14, 14; XLV 18; XLVI 8; LVI 3, 7; LVII 10;
LIX 6.

♦ pp1C2 '3 "xroitt1? 3

218 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

textual reading is according to the Westerns who connect
the two verses into one.1

The St. Petersburg Codex reads D3 with them, in the
text in Isa. XXX 32 and remarks in the Massorah Parva
that according to the Easterns it is H3 with her, thus show-
ing that it designates its text as exhibiting the Western
recension and hence gives the alternative Eastern reading
in the margin fi'yib fQ).

The conclusion, therefore, which we may legitimately
draw from these facts is that this Codex neither exhibits
a distinctive Eastern nor a definite Western recension, but
that it is a mixture of the two recensions which obtained
prior to the time when the texts of the two Schools were
more sharply divided. To adduce, therefore, a variant
from this Codex alone in order to prove an Eastern reading
is to be deprecated, unless indeed the variant is expressly
described as such in other MSS., and unless we are
prepared to describe all the hundreds of various readings
in this MS. as Eastern in contradistinction to the Western
recension.

For this reason the following passages which Dr. Baer
gives in his Lists and in the Prefaces to the various parts
of his editions and some of which I have adopted, as
differences between the Westerns and the Easterns, must
be taken as simply exhibiting ordinary variants.

In Isa. XVIII 2, 7 the St. Petersburg Codex reads
*ip~*\p in two words as it is in the ordinary MSS. and
editions. It has, however, against it in the Massorah Parva
the Kethiv is one word and the Keri two words,2 in spite of
the fact that the Kethiv here exhibits two words. This
variant which I have not as yet been able to find in any

♦"rp prci to *in i,r^ 2

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 219

other MS. is not to be taken as exhibiting- a difference
between the two Schools, but must be regarded as an
ancient Kethiv and Keri. My note on this passage is,
therefore, to be corrected into 'p pin 1j3"lj5 TO in Iplp X"D3.

In Isa. XXIII 12 I have adopted the variation given
by Dr. Baer 'p Wp TO Wp TTQ^ which is to be cancelled,
since even the St. Petersburg Codex has simply Wp in
the text without any Kethiv and Keri. It must, therefore,
be regarded as a simple variant.

In Isa. XLVII 10 the St. Petersburg Codex had
originally m&N in the text as it is in our MSS. and editions.
The Reviser, however, placed a Yod over it and remarked
in the margin against it tffi = the Yod is to be cancelled.
But this variant is not peculiar to the Eastern School as is
evident from Orient. 1478 which has filttN in the text with the
following Massorah against it: In the Mug ah it is THttN and the
Massorah on it is the Yod is redundant.^ Hence the statement
of Dr. Baer in the Preface to the Five Megilloth, p. VI,
which I have adopted in my notes2 must be cancelled.

Isa. LIV 9 is given by Dr. Baer in his Preface to
Jeremiah, p. XI, as exhibiting one of the differences between
the Westerns and the Easterns. He says that the Westerns
read ^"O two words and the Easterns >JB>3 one word.3
But this is an ordinary variant as is attested by the MSS.
Hence Orient. 1478 remarks against it: It is the subject of
a various reading, some write it one word and some two
words.4 To the same effect is Kimchi whom Dr. Baer
wrongly quotes to support the variation as existing between
the two Schools and the printed Massorah Parva.5 The

♦TV 'Tr n^r "d&i tti&k nmz »

♦np nn^K sto max 'n&b »rnaK '^Vfcb 2

*mr\ r6& *&$ 'niab fbto pn ^a '-wish 3

♦pba 'nn ron jvxi K-in r6a tot ivk "t^s >

♦Kin r6fc nrs ra^nno •>

220 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

St. Petersburg Codex, the Chaldee, the Syriac and the
Vulgate have it in one word, whilst the Septuagint and
most of the MSS. and all the early editions have it in
two words. Being an ordinary variant I have not described
it as constituting a difference between the Westerns and
Easterns.

In the Preface to the Five Megilloth, p. VI, Dr. Baer
gives TTltPnin plene Isa. LVIII i as one of the. differences
between these two Schools because it is plene in the
St. Petersburg Codex, which I have adopted. The Codex
had originally TOTO defective and the Reviser placed the
Vav over it with the remark in the margin against it
TD 'bn = it is plene. But this is simply an ordinary variant
and is by no means peculiar to the Easterns as is evident
from the MSS. some of which have it so in the text. It
is plene in the editio princeps of the Prophets, Soncino
1485 — 86; in the first edition of the entire Bible, Soncino
1488; in the third edition of the Bible, Brescia 1494; and
in the Pesaro edition of the Prophets 151 1. The part of
my note, viz. $bfo T\1DT\F\ 'Y\d? is, therefore, to be cancelled.

Dr. Baer states in his List that Isa. LXIII 6 exhibits
a difference between the Westerns and Easterns, that the
former read D13EW) with Kaph and the latter DIIltPNI with
Beth. Though this is supported by Geiger l it is not given
in any of the Lists. Orient. 1478 has the following remark
against it in the Massorah Parva: It is written with Kaph
and it is derived from Shakar and those who read it with
Beth are mistaken.2 It is simply a variant which is exhibited
in some MSS. and is to be found in the editio princeps
of the Bible, Soncino 1488 and in the Chaldee. The
St. Petersburg Codex had it originally in the text and

1 Comp. Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 414.

♦Tto rran •npi jkjssi m-ou 'wbf2 aim spa p 2

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 221

the Reviser altered it into D13EW1 with Kaph. I have,
therefore, g'iven it as an ordinary variant.

The following two passages are wrongly given m
Dr. Baer's List. Isa. XLV 7 ought to be XLV 18 and LVI 6
ought to be LVI 3 as is attested by all the official Lists.

Jeremiah. — To the instances of variants which ob-
tained in the Western and Eastern recensions and which
have been transmitted to us in the official Lists in Jeremiah
I have been able to add nine new ones, viz. (1) Jerem. II 20
from the Massorah Parva in Add. 15251; (2) VIII 7 from
the official List in the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D.
1009; (3) XII 14 from the Massorah Parva in Add. 15251;
(4) XIII 14 from the List in the St. Petersburg Codex of
A. D. 1009; (5) XXXIV 2 from the Massorah Parva in
Orient. 1474; (6) XXXV 3 from the Massorah Parva in
Add. 15251; (7) XXXV 17 from the List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009; (8) XXXVIII 16 and (9) XL VIII 1
both from the Massorah Parva in Add. 15251.

As to the relation of the St. Petersburg Codex dated
A. D. 916 which, as we have already pointed out, is supposed
to exhibit the Eastern recension, I have to add the following
facts to those adduced in the discussion on the condition of
the text of Isaiah. In twenty-seven passages this Codex agrees
with the Western readings and is against the Eastern re-
cension,1 whilst in the same number of instances it coincides
with the Eastern and is against the Western recension.2

1 Comp. Jerem. II 20; IV 30 originally; VI 6, 6; VII 28; VIII 7;
X 13 originally; XIII 14, 18; XXV 2; XXVII 5, 12; XXVIII 3, 17;
XXXII 12 originally; XXXIV 2, 3; XXXVIII 16; XLII 6; XLIV 18;
XLVI1I 3, 44 originally; XLIX 12; L 9, 11, 29; LII 2.

2 Comp. Jerem. V 8; IX 23; X 18; XIII 20, 20 second hand; XVII 4
XXVI 8; XXVII 1, 19; XXIX 22 second hand; XXXII 19 second hand
XXXII 34; XXXIV 2; XXXV 17; XXXVI 23; XXXIX 3, 3, 1 1 ; XLVI 2
XLVII1 1, 18, 36; XLIX iu, 20; L 6, 20; LII 2.

222 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

Out of the large number of variants which occur in
this Codex Dr. Baer has selected nineteen and incorporated
them in his List as exhibiting- differences between the
Westerns and Easterns.1 But the selection is simply arbitrary
unless we take it that all the variants in this MS. are Eastern.
As in the case of Isaiah (XXX 32) so here the Massorite
describes the text as Western. In Jerem. XLVIII 31 the
text has the Western reading fl|iT he shall mourn, third
person singular masculine on which the Massorah Parva
remarks : this is the reading of the Westerns, the Babylonians =
the Eastern read H5HX / shall mourn, first person singular
masculine,2 thus giving the Maarbai as the substantive
reading and relegating the Eastern variant into the margin
as an alternative.

We have still to note the following variants in the
St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916 which add further
proof that it does not exhibit the Eastern recension.

In Jerem. XI 1 1 the Kethiv in this MS. is ^Xl and the
Keri $b\ whereas all the official Lists with one exception
as well as the editio princeps state the very reverse, that
Ssi is the Kethiv according to the Easterns and iib) is
the Keri. The MS. No. 1 in the University Library Madrid
gives the Eastern Keri as $? so that the variation consists
in the absence of the Vav conjunctive.

In Jerem. XXVI 24 the St. Petersburg Codex has
■J3 son of, in the text which is in accordance with the
Western recension, but the Massorite put against it the
textual reading (2TD), is '33 sons of, the plural and the
Keri is ~?3 son of, the singular.3

1 Comp. Jerem, IV 20; V 6; VIII 4; IX 21; XIII 25; XV 14, 21;
XVIII 17, 21; XIX 3; XXII 14, 16; XXIV 1; XXXVI 23; XXXVII 19;
LI 29, 59.

♦p tik ^mb /yizb 'p it 2
♦'p p to "» -fa :!

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 223

In Jerem. XXIX 7 this Codex has TP^n in the text
which is the Western reading, but the Massorite has
against it the Kethiv D^^H and the Keri W^n.1 It will
thus be seen that the textual reading put down by the
Massorite is neither in accordance with the Westerns nor
with the Easterns.

In Jerem. XXXII 1 1 the textual reading in this MS.
is m^iTHXl which is in accordance with the Western
recension. But the Massorite put against it two distinct
notes. The first is 'p tfS flN = the particle fiX is to be
cancelled and the second is 'p fllVftrn = the Keri is

maeem.

T : • - :

In Jerem. XXXIII 3 this MS. has nfTCai in the text
which is the Western reading, but the Massorite put against
it 'p '¥31 = the Keri is fTh¥yi, and though this variant makes
no difference in the sense, since the one makes it conformable
to the phrase in Deut. I 28 and the other to Isa. XLVIII 6,
still all the official Lists state that in the Eastern recension
nil^ is the textual reading and that nll^D5! is the Keri.
This is the very reverse of what is given as the Kethiv
and the Keri in the St. Petersburg Codex.

In Jerem. XLVIII 41 the official List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009, in the Merzbacher MS., in
Bodley No. 1 1 and in the editio princeps, emphatically states
that "ItPDru the third person plural, is the textual reading
and that the Keri is nt^DDi third person singular according
to the Easterns, yet the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916
has the very reverse, since ntPQD3 is in the text with the
remark 'p WQHl = the Keri is the plural.

In Jerem. XV 14 Tj3*fl the Kal future, is given as the
Kethiv and "Tp^fl the Hiphal future as the Keri according to
the Eastern recension in the following official Lists: in the

»'p vrbsn to vrb^sn ,w!?w l

224 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009; in the MS. No. 1 in the
Madrid Royal Library; the Merzbacher MS.; and in Bodley
No. 11. The MS. No. 1 in the University Library Madrid,
however, gives the same variant on XVII 14. I have, there-
fore, given it on both passages.

The following three variations given in Dr. Baer's
List are the very reverse of the official Lists. On Jerem.V 17
Dr. Baer says that the Westerns have nt32 defective and.
the Easterns read it TOi3 plence, whereas all the Lists as
well as the editio princeps state the very reverse. The same
is the case in Jerem. X 18 which Dr. Baer tells us the
Westerns read VTlXni defective and the Easterns Wl^m
plene. This I have inadvertently followed. All the official
Lists, however, state the very reverse, that the Westerns
have it plene and the Easterns read it defective. So also in
Jerem. XXXV 1 1 where Dr. Baer says that the Westerns
read pXiV^S and the Easterns p*1RH"^? which I have
also inadvertently followed. The Rubric in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009 which is the only official List
wherein this variation is tabulated, distinctly declares that
the Westerns read "bV and the Easterns "^X. In Jerem. L 9
where both Dr. Baer and I give the difference between
the Westerns and the Easterns to be that the former read
biybV and the latter bSSrbR, the only two official Lists
which register this variation state the very reverse. Thus
the List in the St. Petersburg" Codex of A. D. 1009
and in Bodley No. 11 say that the Westerns read -**K and
the Easterns mhv.

Ezekiel. — In Ezekiel I have found in the Massorah
Parva of the different MSS. nine variations between the
Westerns and Easterns which do not appear in the official
Lists. (1) Ezek. VI 14 is from the St. Petersburg Codex
of A. D. 916; (2) VIII 3 is from Add. 21 161 in the British
Museum; (3) so is the second variant recorded on this

CHAP. IX.] The "Western and Eastern Recensions. 225

verse; (4) X 21 is from Add. 15251; (5) XIII 16 is from
the St. Petersburg Codex dated 1009; (6) XXIII 17 and

(7) XXIII 18 are from Orient. 2201 in the British Museum;

(8) XXV 8 is from Add. 15251; and (9) XXXVI 23 is from
Orient. 2201.

From a comparison of the text in the St. Petersburg
Codex of A. D. 916 with our Western recension it will be
seen that almost identically the same results are yielded in
Ezekiel as we have obtained from the analysis of Isaiah and
Jeremiah. Thus of the twenty-seven undoubted differences
between the Westerns and the Easterns this Codex agrees
in fifteen passages with the Maarbai, i. e. our recension
or the Western School/ whilst in twelve instances it ex-
hibits the Madinchai or Eastern recension.2

We have still to discuss five passages in the official
Lists of the differences between the Westerns and the
Easterns which show the character of the text in the
St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916.

Ezek. V 1 1. — All the official Lists state the Westerns
read here jnjN / will dimmish, with Resh and that the
Easterns have JJ^UN / will cut off, with Daleth in the text
for which the Keri substitutes JH2K with Resh.2, Now the
text in this Codex had originally JHJN with Daleth which
is also the reading in Harley 5710 — 1 1 ; in the second edition

1 Comp. Ezek. I 13 first hand; VII 7, 10, 22; VIII 3; X 21; XIV 19;
XVI 13; XXIII 17, 18; XXV 8; XXXVI 23; XXXVII 24; XLIII 26;
XLIV 3.

2 Comp. Ezek. XI 6 second hand; XIII 16; XIV 22; XVII 7; XXI 19;
XXV 9; XXVII 31; XXIX 4; XXXI 12; XXXII 4; XLII 8 second hand;
XLIII 20.

3 'p jnaK TO IH3K 'Hfcb ,y-\M TO1?, so the Lists in the St. Petersburg
Codex of A. D. 1009; in Codex No. I in the Madrid University Library; in
the MS. of Royal Library Madrid; in the Merzbacher MS.; in Bodley No. 11 ;
in Arund. Orient. 16; and in the editio princeps.

226 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

of the entire Hebrew Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; and in the
third edition Brescia 1494. The Annotator, however, put
against it the following Massorah: "the Kethiv is with Resh
and the Keri with Daletli' ,x and though this variant is
against all the Lists, Dr. Baer exhibits it in this form as
one of the differences between the Westerns and the
Easterns. It will thus be seen that according to the
testimony of the Massorite, the textual reading or the Kethiv
in this Codex exhibits the Western recension.

Ezek. XIII 17. — This Codex tells us that the Easterns
read ~bV in the text and that the Keri is 'bit, whereas
according to the Westerns the reverse is the case, the
textual reading is ~b$ and the Keri is ~bV.2 The oldest
official List, however, of A. D. 1009 states that the textual
reading according to the Easterns is ~bV without any Keri and
that the Westerns read 'bit also without any Keri} And
though this difference between the two Schools of textual
critics is reversed in the other Lists, inasmuch as they state
that the Easterns read ~b$ and the Westerns ~bv4 still they
all agree that there is no Kethiv and Keri on this particle
here. The Massoretic note, therefore, in the Codex in
question is at variance with all the official Lists and can
only be regarded as exhibiting the Massorah of one of
the several Schools of Massorites which obtained in
the East.

Ezek. XXII 4. — This Codex which has "IP in the
text, remarks in the Massorah Parva that the Easterns
read DJ? and that the Westerns read "IP.5 All the official

♦ 'p in JTQ in ,2HJK \

rbv 'pi *vtb 'ro -*flj >"nb 'p bx mzmbv 2
♦mon-by 'nab ,m:2-^ 'v^b 3

4 mD-fe$ 'HE1? rlTSS"^ 'V^b, so the Merzbacher MS.; Bodley No. 11 ;
Arund. Orient. 16; and the editio princeps.

/p "is TJ&i r'p nr 'mm -^mr^-rr 5

CHAP. IX. J The Western and Eastern Recensions. 227

Lists, however, positively state that the textual reading
of the Easterns, i. e. the yir\3 is HV and that the Keri
is -T?.1

Ezek. XXIII 19. — On this passage this Codex which
has niim in the text, states in the Massorah Parva that
the Easterns read H^fil and that the Westerns read nSHfil.2
All the official Lists, however, most emphatically state
that the Eastern textual reading (D^fiS) is HID] and that
the Keri is PIlHFn.8

Ezek. XLIV 3. — The List in the St. Petersburg
Codex of A. D. 1009 states that the Westerns read here bltib
defective which is the textual reading in the editio princeps of
the Bible, Soncino 1488, and that the Easterns read it bi^xb
■plene. As this is the only official List which has preserved
this record we must accept it as final. The text, therefore,
in the Codex in question, i. e. the St. Petersburg Codex
of A. D. 916 which reads b^xb exhibits in this instance also
the Western recension.

Dr. Baer has included in his List of the differences
between the Westerns and Easterns no fewer than forty-
eight variations 4 simply because they occur in the St. Peters-
burg Codex dated A. D. 916. But it is sufficiently evident
from the above analysis that this MS. does not exhibit

1 "1p IV :rfl nj? "1&b ,"pnwni? '-ir&b, so the List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009; the Merzbacher MS.; the Madrid MS. in the Royal
Library; Bodley No. 11; Arund. Orient. 16; and the editio princeps.

♦'p ra-im 'r»bi ,'p s-ini 'ssb nmrn L>

3 'p Itnm TO mm 'nab riWrVI Wb, so the List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009; the Merzbacher MS.; the MS. No. I in the Royal
Library Madrid; Bodley No. II; Arund. Orient. 16: and the editio princeps.

4 Comp. Ezek. V 12, 13; IX 8; Xt 7, 19; XII 14; XIII 2; XIV 17;

XVI 4, 29, 46, 48; XVII 7, 14, 15; XVIII 2, 20; XXI 2, 9, 14, 19; XXII 12,

12, 13; XXIII 35, 46; XXVI 17; XXVIII 26; XXX 18; XXXI 4;

XXXII 16, 26; XXXIII 33; XXXIV 23; XXXVI 5; XXXIX 28; XL 2,

3, 25; XLIV 3; XLVI 6, 6, 8, 9, 21; XLVII 6, 1 1 ; XLVIII 28.

228 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

the Eastern recension. Hence no various reading which
occurs in it can legitemately be characterised as
Eastern.

The Minor Prophets. — In the Minor Prophets I have
only been able to add one instance to the differences
between the Westerns and Easterns, viz. DiT^i? their
children, Hos. XIV i which according to the Western School
is defective, whilst according to the Eastern recension it
is DTPWltf plene}

As to the relation of the St. Petersburg Codex of
A. D. 916 to the two recensions, it is to be remarked that
of the twenty-three passages in which a comparison can
definitely be instituted no fewer than thirteen agree with
our text or the Maarbai;2 whilst it is only in ten instances
that this Codex coincides with the Eastern recension or
Madinchai?

In two passages this Codex differs both from the
Eastern and Western recensions. Thus on Nah. II 6 all the
official Lists state that the textual reading (D*i"D) according
to the Westerns is DfD^nSl with Vav and that the Keri is

T T -: -

DrD^fD with Yod, but that the Easterns have Dfi3*S*D with

T T • -: - '

Yod both in the Kethiv and Keri, whereas this Codex reads
DfDbrn with neither Vav nor Yod. Again on Habak. Ill 19
the official Lists declare that the Westerns read >m'V233

T • : •

without any Keri and that the Easterns read *Ffl3l'JJS in the
text (3TI3) and that the Keri is >J"|13*3J3, whereas this Codex
has in the text TIJP233 with both Vavs defective to which

1 This Massorah is the Margin on Psalm XVIE 14 in Harley 5710 — 11
Vide supra p. 214.

2 Comp. Hos. IV 12; XIV 1, 5 first hand; Amos III 6; VI 8; Micah VI 5
first hand; VII 5, 5; Nahum II 12 first hand; Zeph. Ill 7; Zech. XII 10 ;
XIV 4; Malachi I 14.

3 Comp. Hos. VIII 13; IX 6; Joel 1 12; IV 7; Micah V 12; Nah.
Ill 8; Hab. II 16; Zech. IX 17; XIII 7; XIV 13.

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 229

the later Massorite added a note in the margin to make it
conformable to the Eastern Kethiv.x

That the text in this Codex does not exhibit the
Eastern recension, but that a later Annotator tried in
several instances to make it conformable to the readings
of the Madinchai is, moreover, evident from the following
passages.

On rlosea IV 12, the official List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009 states that the Westerns read
here ibpffi and his staff, and that the Easterns read it
l^lpttl and from hie voice. Thus Codex of A. D. 916 like
our text reads i^pttl, yet the Annotator remarks in the
Massorah Parva that the textual reading is l^ijJO5! (which is
contrary to the text) .and there is a difference of opinion
about it?

Hosea IV 5. — Here the official Lists state that the
Westerns read ^SO from themy but that the Easterns have
'SSI? from me in the text (DTD), and that the Keri accord-
ing to some Lists is ^330. On a close examination of the
MS., however, it will be seen that this Codex had origi-
nally "Uftft in the text, which is the Western reading, and
that the Annotator altered it into *3££3 and remarked
against it in the margin Read 1J00,3 which makes it con-
formable to the Eastern recension. It is, however, to be
stated that the official List in the St. Petersburg Codex
of A. D. 1009 simply remarks that the Easterns read ^ftft
from me, without any alternative or Keri and that this is
also given in Bodley No 1 1 and in the editio princeps.

On Micah VI 5 the Lists state that the Westerns
read n? what, and that the Easterns have >j£ who in the

1 On the textual reading TlD^W the Annotator remarks YVUVSn which
contradicts the text.

♦'bisi to ibpiy\ i^p&i 2

230 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

text (S'rD), but that the Keri is rift what. The text,
however, in this Codex is rift as it is in the Western
recension, but the Annotator put against it in the margin
the Kethiv is ^ft and the Keri is rift,1 thus contradicting
the text in order to make it conformable to the Eastern
reading.

Nahum II 12. — According to the ofhcal Lists the
Western reading here is Mil i"W")ft% whilst the Easterns
have K*H in the text (^ro) for which the Keri is jttfT,
Here too this Codex has NIH the Western reading in the
text, but here again the Annotator put against it the
contradictory note the textual reading is with Yod (&0H), hut
the Keri is with Vav (X1H).2

Zechariah XIV 4 affords the most conclusive proof
that this Codex exhibits the Western recension and not
the text of the Madinchai. The official Lists distinctly
state that according to the Western recension this verse
reads ^"bV K%T1 D1*3 Vb:r\ VTftjn and his feet shall stand in
that day upon the mount &c. and that the Eastern text
has it 1H"^? V^H HftP") and his feet shall stand upon the
mount &c. leaving out the words Rtfin D1'3 in that day.
This Codex, however, does not leave out the words in
question according to the Easterns, but reads the verse
exactly as the Western recension has it. The Annotator
who states the difference between the two Schools of
textual critics in this verse tells us that he found XlilH D 1*21
which the text exhibits, to be the Western reading and
that the Babylonians do not recognise this phrase as
either Kethiv or Keri.3 He, therefore, distinctly describes
the text in the Codex before us as exhibiting the Western
recension.

♦'p n& 're ^ pir-ntt 1

♦'p 'i '3 "■ Kin nm&i 2

♦"ip xbi to *6 vbaa trca (row 15 ,'npa ""ip nn bi>°xinn°Dvn ;«

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 231

Dr. Baer has greatly obscured the issue of the
investigation as to which of the two Schools of textual
critics this remarkable Codex belongs by unjustifiably
incorporating* in his Lists of the differences between the
Westerns and Easterns many of the variants in this MS. and
by exhibiting them as Eastern readings. He has thus
increased his List for the Minor Prophets alone by no
fewer then twenty-nine passages/ simply because they
occur in this MS., whereas many of them are also to be
found in our acknowledged Western Codices and in the
early editions.2

The Hagiographa. — For this division of the Hebrew
Bible I have collated the following official Lists: (i) The
List in the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009; (2) in the
Merzbacher MS.; (3) Bodley No. 11; (4) Bodley No. 93;
(5) Orient. 4227 British Museum and (6) in the editio
princeps. Neither the Madrid Codex No. 1 nor the splendid
MS. Arund. Orient. 16 in the British Museum gives the
differences between the Westerns and Easterns for the
Hagiographa.

Psalms. — To the Psalms I have been able to add
eight new instances which are not given in the official
Lists. They are all from the Massorah Parva in MS.
No. 1 — 3 in the Paris National Library and are as follows:
(1) Ps. XXII 5, 6; (2) LII 1, 2; (3) LIII 1, 2; (4) LIV 2;
(5) LXXIX 10; (6) XC 1; (7) CI 5 and (8) CXXIX 5, 6.
Dr. Baer's statement that the difference between the

1 Comp. Hosea IX 9, 16; X 11 ; XIII 9; Joel. I 12; II 7, 22; Amos
III 11; V 2, 20; IX 7; Micah IV 3; V I; VII 16; Nah. II 5; III 11 ; Hab.
II 5; Zeph. II 7; III 9, 11, 18; Zech. I 4; II 12; IV 10; XI 10; XIV 18;
Mai. Ill 11, 14, 22.

2 Comp. the notes in my edition on Hos. IX 9, 16; Joel I 12; II 7;
Amos III II; Micah IV 3 ; VII 16; Zeph. Ill 9, 18; Zech. I 4; XI 10 ;
XIV 18 &e.

232 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

Westerns and the Easterns on Ps. CI i consists in the
former reading ^ifttft plene and the latter IJbtlft defective l is
contrary to all the official Lists and to the Massorah. The
List in the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009 emphatically
states that according to the Westerns it is ihlft entirely
defective, whilst according to the Easterns it is *Tto?a
plene.2 This is also the case in all the other Lists
both in the MSS. and in the editio princeps. And Add.
1 525 1 has in the Massorah Parva against it that it is the
only instance in which "ljbtp is defective according to the
Westerns. 3

Proverbs. — In Proverbs I have added one new
instance; viz. XXX 6 from the Massorah Parva in MS.
No. 1 — 3 in the National Library Paris. According to the
Merzbacher MS. and Bodley No. 1 1 the difference between
the Westerns and Easterns in Pro v. XII 18 is that the
former read it HE'D with He at the end, and the latter
NETD with Aleph, and this difference I give in the Notes
on the text of my edition. The List in the St. Petersburg
Codex of A. D. 1009, however, distinctly states that the
Easterns have as Kethiv \1^2 with Yod and as Keri HC31D
with Vav. Hence an Aleph or He at the end is not at all
the point at issue, and this is supported by the List in
Orient. 4227 in the British Museum and in the List of
the editio princeps. The List in the St. Petersburg Codex
also differs from the other Lists in its statement as to
the nature of the variation between the two Schools with
regard to Prov. XVIII 20, inasmuch as it declares that both
the Kethiv and the Keri are fiiODfi with Yod, according to
the Easterns.4

♦ion nbifc nrtb 'iibb ,xb& niBta tt6 mb *
♦*6& ^ifcifc 'n&b ,iDm 'on *ibt& 'vzb 2

♦ '"TO1? 'DM 'b 1J3TJB 3

/pi to wan 'nb1? «

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 233

Job. — In Job I have added one new instance, viz.
XXXVI 1 8 from the Massorah Parva in MS. No. 1—3 in
the National Library, Paris. It is also to be remarked that
the official Lists do not agree among themselves as to
the exact nature of the differences between these two
Schools with regard to some of the words. Thus for
instance in Job II 7 the List in the St. Petersburg Codex
of A. D. 1009, the Merzbacher MS. and Bodley No. n
state that the Easterns have IV] and unto, with Vav con-
junctive both as the Kethiv and Keri, l and this in the form
in which I have given the variant in the Notes. According
to the Lists, however, in Bodley No. 93, in Orient. 4227
British Museum and in the editio princeps the textual
reading (DTD) is IV) and unto, and the Keri is IV unto,
without the Vav conjunctive which is the very reverse
of the Western recension.2

In Job XXVI 12 all the Lists agree that the Westerns
have inynrn5) both as Kethiv and Keri, but they differ
greatly with regard to the Eastern variant. Thus the List
in the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009 states that the
Eastern Kethiv is IfTUDrDI. Bodley No 1 1 says it is
iri3DirD1; Bodley No. 93 and the editio princeps give it
WDrni, thus making it exactly like the Kethiv and Keri
according to the Westerns and doing away with the variant
altogether. The Merzbacher MS. and Orient. 4227, however,
emphatically state that according to the Easterns the Kethiv
is inj^rni and the Keri is 1fD!QrQ:l. 3 This variant probably
exhibits the recension of one School of Massorites, whilst
the one which I give in the Notes on this passage pro-
ceeds from another School who included the word in

•■npi srra 1st) 'neb '

2 According to these Lists the difference is as follows: *1J? ""ItfE^

234 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

question in" the List of words wherein the letters are
transposed. 1

The Eastern variant which I have given on Job
XXXIX 15 is from Add. 465 in the Cambridge University
Library. The Massorah Parva in this MS. emphatically
declares that these extraordinary points are on both letters
Cheth and Yod;2 whereas Dr. Baer marks the Yod alone. As
this passage is not included in the Massoretic List of
words which have extraordinary points,3 it affords another
proof of the oft-stated fact that the different Schools of
Massorites had different Rubrics, and that the instances
which they exhibit are not exhaustive, but are simply to
be taken as typical.

The Five Megilloth. — In the Megilloth I have added
two new instances, viz. Ruth II 7 from Harley 5710 — 11
and Esther II 3 from Add. 465 in the University Library
Cambridge. I have still to examine the following passages
which Dr. Baer has incorporated in his List and which
I have inadvertently adopted as exhibiting the Eastern
readings.

In the note on Canticles II 17 which I give as an
Eastern variant, the word ^xnniS^ according to the Easterns,
is to be corrected into N"D other MSS., another reading is.
Though the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009 on
Ezek. XIII 2 gives it as one of the seven instances
where the Kethiv is "^X unto, and the Keri "bV upon,* this
by itself, as my analysis of this Codex has shown, does
not constitute it a variant of the Madinchai unless it is
expressly described as such in another MS.

1 'Hp inSlSnSl ATO inaairDl; comp. The Massorah, letter 3, § 480;
Vol. II, pp. 53, 54.

•tpi rrn by tips n*hi "•xnnab 2

3 Comp. The Massorah, letter 3, § 521, Vol. II, p. 296.

4 Comp. The Massorah, letter X, § 514, Vol. I, p. 57.

CHAP. IX.) The Western and Eastern Recensions. 235

In my note on Ruth III 15 I followed Dr. Baer in
describing ^H as Milel according to the . Madinchai.
Dr. Baer who says that the Westerns read it as the
Hiphil from Nil to come, whilst the Easterns read it as the
imperative Kal from 3JT to give, refers to the printed
Massorah Parva on this passage and to the Massorah
Magna on Jerem. XXXIX 9 in corroboration of this
statement. But the Massorah Parva simply remarks that
the verb N*D to come, is in nine passages defective of the
radical Aleph and that about this instance which is one
of the nine, there is a difference of opinion. l To the same
effect is the Massorah Magna on Jerem. XXXIX 9, which
after enumerating the nine passages and giving Ruth III 15
as the last instance, remarks there is a difference of opinion
about this last one,2 i. e. whether it is defective or not.
We have, however, seen that the expression XflJll^D = there
is a difference of opinion, does not by itself denote Eastern
unless it is so specified.

Lamentations I 21. — For the same reason ^rmtt*?
according to the Easterns, on Lament. I 21 where I have
followed Dr. Baer, is to be corrected into N"D = other
A1SS. have, or another reading is, since it rests upon the
same expression '31/0 = a difference of opinion.

Eccl. VIII 2. I have inadvertently followed Dr. Baer
and given -ijbttf defective, as the Western reading and TiBttf
plene, as the Eastern. According to the List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex the Western recension reads llttttf plene, and
the Easterns have it Ibttf defective. This is corroborated
by Harley 5710— 11 which not only has liftfctf in the text,
but remarks against it in the Massorah Parva plene accord-
ing to the Westerns.'6

♦pi bv xruibsi rwa '«r»ba 'an is »

♦xnaiba xnm 2
svbb 'bft matr 3

236 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

Eccl. XII 13. — Here too I have inadvertently
followed Dr. Baer giving liftttf plene, as the Western
reading and IJbttf defective, as the Eastern, whereas
according to the St. Petersburg Codex which is the only
MS. that gives it in the official List the reverse is the
case, the Westerns have it defective and the Easterns
plene.

In the following instances the official Lists differ
among themselves as to the exact nature of the variants
which obtained between the Westerns and the Easterns
with regard to the words in question.

On Ruth I 6 the List in the St. Petersburg Codex
of A. D. 1009 states that according to the Easterns both
the Kethiv and the Keri are Dipfil.1

Ruth II 11. — According to Bodley No. 11; Bodley
No. 93 and the Merzbacher MS. the Easterns read here
^3~nN; whilst the Westerns have simply ~bl.2

Ruth III 5. — Here too the same difference obtained
between these two Schools of textual critics according to
the Lists in the Merzbacher MS.; in Bodley No. 93; and
in Orient. 4227 in the British Museum.

Eccl. Ill 13. — According to the List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009 the Westerns read nttfiJJn plene,
and the Easterns have it nfejjjn defective* whereas accord-
ing to the Lists in the other MSS. and in the editio
princeps the reverse is the case, the Westerns have it
defective and the Easterns plene.4

Eccl. IV 1. — According to the same List in the
St. Petersburg Codex D^ttflM which occurs twice in this

♦"TJ51 TO Bpm 'Vtth x

♦np -itfx bs-nx "rich ^twr^o 'vch 2
trnw?n '^ch ,'bto ntwi >yth *

4 'bC; HTOH 'Hfcb non nwn 'VCh, so the Merzbacher MS ; Bodley
No. 11; Bodley No. 93; and Orient. 4227 British Museum.

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 237

verse is plene in both instances in the Eastern recension/
whereas all the other official Lists state that it is defective
in "both instances according to the Easterns.'2 Moreover,
all the Lists state that according to the Westerns the
second WpWVil alone is plene, whereas the first is WppVil
defective.* But the Massorah Parva in the editio prmceps
emphatically states that it is plene in both instances
according to the Westerns4 and in the text follows the
Eastern recension, having it defective in both clauses.

Daniel. — In Daniel I have added no fewer than
seven new variations between the Westerns and the
Easterns. Six of the instances (Dan. IV 16; VI 5, 19, 27;
VII 4; XI 44) are from MS. No. 1 — 3 in the Paris National
Library, and one variant (XI 6) is from the Lists in the
Merzbacher MS.; in Bodley No. 93; and in Orient. 4227.
One new instance which occurs in the List of the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009 I have omitted. In Dan. XI 44
the Easterns according to this MS. read rippE^ defective}'

In one instance the Lists do not agree as to the exact
nature of the difference between these two Schools ot
textual critics. According to the List in the St. Petersburg
Codex, the Westerns read HWDI in Dan. V 8, whilst the
Easterns read frO^'pl.6 But according to three other Lists
the Westerns have in the text Xl^'p1! with Aleph, for which
the Keri substitutes PllttfOI with He, whilst the Easterns
have r!*lttfp1 with He both as Kethiv and Keri.1 Another

*'bft 'n wpwvn '3-i&S ■

2 D-lCn prmn D'ptMH TIB1?, so the Merzbacher MS.; Bodley No. n ;
Bodley No. 93; Orient. 4227; and the editio princeps.

ttkhb iKpan Dpwn mb 3

♦'on pmnn "snrnia1? ,'bn prrhn "»sn2&^ npiryn 4

•to nrawi 'i-tob ,mrwi mb 5

♦pi to K-wai 'na1? mm •vbb 6

7 'pi TID ITOWI 'n&b ,'p fmMM TO KltPBl *Vtht so the Merzbacher MS.;
Bodley No. II; and Bodley No. 93.

238 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

List, however, which agrees with these MSS. as for as
the Western reading is concerned, states that the Easterns
have JOttf'31 with Aleph both in the Kethiv and Kerix and
in this respect, therefore, agrees with the List in the
St. Petersburg Codex.

Ezra-Nehemiah. — In Ezra X 3 the note should be
"the Easterns have DV^S in the counsel of as the textual
reading (^ro), and in the Keri n¥P3 according to the counsel
of" instead of simply "the Easterns read H^V2 according
to the counsel".2

In Nehemiah XIII 15 I have followed Dr. Baer and
given a variation between the Westerns and Easterns on
D^DftjJl and they were lading. But as this simply rests on
the expression xnJI^DI and there is a difference of opinion
about it? and as we have already shown that this word by
itself does not denote Madinchai, my note is to be corrected
into D*tPEX?1 X"D other MSS. have or another reading is D'tPftPl
with Sin as in Neh. IV 11.

Chronicles. — In Chronicles I have been able to
increase the number of variations between the Westerns
and Easterns by the following eleven instances: 1 Chron.
IV 15, 20; VI 41; VII 38; XV 24; 2 Chron. II 17; V 12, 13;
VII 6; XIII 14; and XVII 8. The following three instances
I have adopted from Dr. Baer's List: 1 Chron. V 27;
VII 18; and 2 Chron. XXIV 19. These, however, I could
not verify. In four passages the official Lists differ
among themselves as to the exact nature of the variations

1 "Hpl TO iTttPBl 'il^b ,^p mtPBI TO KltTSI Tfcf?, so tbe List in
Orient. 4227 British Museum. Unless we assume that after 2TO K"N0B1 'Jjizb
the words "Hp rHtPBl have dropped out of the first line the edilio princeps
differs from all the other Lists.

2 'p nstw to nam 'i^sh, so ail the Lists instead of nxra "illsb,

:! The MS Massorah which Dr. Baer adduces in support of the Eastern
reading is simply KTUlbfil T&D 5TD1 Wb.

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 239

which obtained between these two Schools of textual
critics.

i Chron. VII 28. — According to the List in Arund.
Orient. 16; in Bodley No. 93; and in the editio princeps, the
Westerns read rW~*7? unto Aiyah, in two words and the
Easterns iT$HP Ad ay ah in one word. The latter though
the Easterns recension, is exhibited in the fourth edition
of the entire Bible, Pesaro 151 1 17; in the first edition of
the Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 15 17; and in the
Bomberg quarto Bible of 1521. According to the List in
the Merzbacher MS , however, in Bodley No. 1 1 and in
Orient. 4227 British Museum, the Westerns read i"WlP
unto Addali in two words, whilst the Easterns read it rnini?
Ada dd ah or minp Adadali in one word (comp. Josh. XV 22).
Dr. Baer indeed quotes Codex No. 18, Tzufutkale which
gives a third variant. According to this MS. the Westerns
read JTX? IV unto Aiyah, whilst the Easterns have this as
the textual reading (DTD), but substitute for it in the Keri
iW Gaza.1

i Chron. XVII 6. — According to the List in the
Merzbacher MS.; Bodley No. 11; Bodley No. 93; Arund.
Orient. 16; and the editio princeps, the Westerns read here
\2P my people, and the Easterns have "IftV his people in the
text (DTD), for which they substitute *QV my people in the
Keri. But the List in Orient. 4227 emphatically declares
that the Westerns have ^V as Kethiv and Keri, and that the
Easterns have TftP his people, as Kethiv and Keri.2

1 Chron. XXV 27. — The official Lists greatly differ
about the Western and Eastern orthography of the proper
name in this verse. They exhibit no fewer than four
varieties each of which is claimed as the genuine reading
of the respective Schools. (1) According to the List in

.'p n'r to rrr 'yibb ,np pi to it* is 'Vbb •
♦npi "»na iJaj? vibb r'npi "tc "op w? 2

240 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

the Merzbacher MS. and the Aleppo Codex quoted by
Dr. Baer, the Westerns read it flfl*^(& to Eliyathah, and the
Easterns read it nfiX^x'? to Eliathah, with an Aleph after
the Yod, thus making it conformable to verse four of this
chapter. (2) According to the Lists in Bodley No. 1 1 and
Bodley No. 93 the Westerns spell it i"fJV^*6 with He at
the end; and the Easterns Xf)J*?&6 with Aleph at the end.
(3) According to the Lists in Arund. Orient. 16 and Orient
4227 the Westerns write it nriN^x5? and the Easterns
NfifcT^K^. The two recensions agree in having Aleph after
the Yod and differ about the ending, the former having He
at the end and the latter Aleph. And (4) the List in the
editio princeps which states that the Westerns have nriX,£?N^
with Aleph after the Yod and He at the end; whilst the
Easterns read it XrV^N^ without Aleph after the Yod, but
with Aleph at the end instead of He.1

2 Chron. XV 2. — The five Lists which I have collated
for this division of the Bible as well as the List in the
editio princeps distinctly state that the Westerns read here
^yftV? hear ye me, defective and that the Easterns read it
''FlVfiVf plene.2 In my note on this passage I have in-
advertently followed Dr. Baer and given the reverse as
exhibiting the respective Schools.

In giving* the variations of these two Schools of
textual critics on each word which is the subject of the
variant, I have not only reverted to the practice of the
best MSSV but have enabled the student to see at a glance
the nature of the various reading. The official Eastern
readings now occupy their rightful position by the side of
the official Keri.

♦npi std nnK^xb "i&b ,-npi to nn,l?Kb 'ytb l

2 *6fc Wfifc' H&-? r'fin ^rtttP 'tflB1?, so the Merzbacher MS.; Bodley
No. 11; Bodley No. 93; Arund. Orient. 16; Orient. 4227; and the editio princeps.

Chap. X.
The. Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali.

In the early part of the tenth century Ben-Asher and
Ben-Naphtali, two rival textual critics, were eng'aged in the
redaction of two rival recensions of the Hebrew Bible
which they respectively furnished with vowel-points, accents
and the Massorah. Without entering into the controversy
whether Aaron Ben-Asher who flourished circa A. D. 900 — 940
was a Karaite or a Rabbinic Jew which is outside the scope
of this chapter, it is sufficient to state that he had derived
great advantages in his Biblical studies from his father
Moses Ben-Asher who had already edited a Codex of the
Bible circa A. D. 890 — 95.

The Codex of Moses Ben-Asher or Ben-Asher the elder
as we shall henceforth call him, still exists and is in the
possession of the Karaite community at Cairo. It now
contains only the Former and Latter Prophets or the second
of the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible. According to
the Epilogue at the end of the Minor Prophets, which is
in the hand writing of Ben-Asher the elder and which Jacob
Saphir copied, the writer of this MS. describes himself as
Moses Ben-Asher and states that he finished it in Tiberias
in the year 827 after the destruction of Jerusalem.1 This is

^5 aian \-iSx t: ^ bs *npa bw ^riftx m ■■nana -wit p mwa *:k ■
vnp ',-1 *Tm awaa mr lrarwa nbbinn tot rmaa it ot rt*iaa aiwi 1*3
mm vb n3a« t;k p-ran ^h n&sn mo btmhkti rmnoa bz twaton lrnba
p"&n lb'HJHi mown ar6 iwmw na *?r 'aaa ibwi *6i arte |n*3» n&& -ch
wa -pna 7112 -nan terraa ^arc waa annaxa bhdwi ansa hp3"iki dhw>

242 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

according to the Jewish chronology, which according to
our reckoning synchronises with A. D. 895. A copy made
from this Codex was purchased by Moses Isserles for
100 Ducats in the year 1530 and is now deposited in the
Synagogue at Cracow. It is minutely described by
M. Weissmann in the Hebrew Weekly called Magid}

The Codex of Aaron Ben-Asher or Ben-Asher the
younger is in the possession of the Jewish community at
Aleppo. This MS. which contains the whole Hebrew Bible,
like its predecessor is furnished with vowel-points, accents
and both Massorahs Parva and Magna. In the Epilogue we
are told that it is not the autograph of Ben-Asher, but that
the celebrated Scribe R. Salomon b. Bevieh made this
copy and that the original was sacredly consigned by
R. Israel of Bozrah to the Karaite community at Jerusalem
in trust of the two brothers, the Princes Josiah and Hezekiel
who flourished circa A. D. 980, under the following conditions :

(1) It is to be produced before the Congregation of the
Holy City on the three great Festivals, Passover, Pentecost
and Tabernacles for publicly reading therefrom the Lessons.

(2) In case the said two Princes leave Jerusalem they are
to give the MS. into trust to two other trustworthy and
pious men. And (3) any Jew of the Rabbinic persuasion
may use it for comparing and correcting by it other MSS.,
but not for the purpose of study.2

rmyh\ isbbi uabb iminn vnb rm wj> tx'p mrr ^a^a pan vr iaxa
ratn Dntwn nixia rwiiaip ypb 21123 *px bxrwr b^ risen traam nbw 2^2
mpx ^2x2 insai D^n-o vby ai«ri matw "W i&x^ wn wan pnr6 d^u
■•labir^i o^ir*? pnr *6i ensv x^i rcnr x^p a^ipa ptt d^p paa 12121 i^aai
♦n 111217 t ep prxi pbn tbd px :px bxitr *?2 t«3i wa niiaa D"Jabir

1 The description is given in the Supplement (.IBISM) Nos. 47, 48,
pp. 186, 190, Lyck 1857, where the Epilogue agrees almost literally with the
one contained in the Eben Saphir, Vol. I, fol. 14 b, Lyck 1886.

na*?rc x;an xna irnx ana© a^iaa nyaixi 'diw !w abtpn ^nacon it 2

1x2 mix icai ipai larran m mi iM&fi iaio,i [ani-r p ixi xyxi2 p yuan

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 243

According to a note on page i, the Codex with
the permission of the two said Princes was transferred
from Jerusalem to the community in Egypt circa A. D.
iooo — 1004 for the Jerusalemite Synagogue before the
capture of the Holy City to save it from destruction.1

In the year 1009, that is three or four years after it
was conveyed to the Jerusalem Congregation at Cairo
and most probably in the life-time of the first Trustees,
a certain Samuel b. Jacob copied this Standard Codex of
Ben-Asher for Meborach Ibn Osdad. This very important

m.nan DTatai wxm a*aann wi anaian jinx paan aan,n bnsn nanan ytem
rrrnas iwaa \nn new an na ja \-ait an na nvhrra mmn rnyaaa paan rwraa
ma^n mnxn ^Y-un nun mix trnpn ♦an'anm a'pmaini B^if aan or a^nn mnata
ibn ti an" a*nan n^n mann paam aann nxnt^ na nnxan nxmrr warn xana
an -iB p mnye an na p nnaw an na p mata namaa my maan ima pat pari
-nya p-nw mr apy- mn.np bx-\w ym ay p'ny tsbwrrb aman rn nn anax
xn ',-tb wnp nna aniy ir n^aia" a*pnx p*at nna croawn a-aann nbua man
ntrmp nnma maa a^nan aw wan w "m nnna tear xna' naa nr nxa^ xni naa<
nnp:a if wan p mn if wan nwinp maa ■•aa irppTir inwrn imwf if wan nnn tin
nsn mrrn nx iniif imw ma a^nn py nnn ma a^nn mnata rhra awea
mnpn maan am nimawn am mata.n an aman nwbwa wipn mpaw mmnpn
an na aminan aw wan w ixm axi innan iacam nwx na iaaa nanni piannni ia
amaai ammai a^wax *aw ay mix inpa^tr nnbann nnna amae a^m impmn l.mwif
WK piam axi anpinai anaana iwj? yac lew nax wan a\nnx <xm B-yimi
nan ix nm nan ia mmb nawn nia^ naa a^aanna naan myaa brnw ym naa
mxnn rnx imif asr lnxn a^ayana aya ix mna ix aina ix mna ix mna is*
ia pK trx ia ipanm xni iBipan vriawn winnni mnpn xn parrtn n-aamni
bmw na nyi iinr nyi rnr nana p^a aia p^a mix b'w nxntr^ "nnx tpi naiax
nr *mn piajx ntra1' nr a^nnai xaa: bv a^a paix ^a ainaw xnpa vbv a^pnn
':x ',nn nax* m a^a ^na^ nr a'-anya n^acn paa mam -j^x^xai nr manai -\v-\i
ia nimaxn manan nai naa1' nxmz?s awai "r\b in* aina*1 nn apy* atra *c<p* nri
r?xn j^Btfir1 *a na nn rnr annan na nyi iym nn vbv imaxn i:nxn ixian inim
n,ma a*anir saniyni aniyn Bma*1 xni aa^nm xni r\bar\ a*nana nryn a*rpn
oHn a*1 e]n jitrxn pbn n*aa jax qaxi px aniyn n
nnpn jaiani naan wmpn n^y abwim ana jb pxanaxnx aana npnax i
■vmf iaaia mnxi inai-r mna bx^w ***na piani naan anwim na^aan ans-a
♦a* rjn jirxn pnn n*aa px nyi aniyn nxa^ xni naa*- xn laawaa mnxi inaia

244 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

copy is now in the Imperial Public Library at St. Peters-
burg. The name of the Scribe, the place where the copy
was made, the honoured person for whom it was transcribed
and the date on which it was finished are all most
minutely given in the Epigraph of the MS. They are
written in the same hand-writing as the MS. itself.

In the long Epigraph which was published by Pinner
who was the first to call attention to this Codex when it
was in the possession of "the Odessa Society for History
and Antiquities" and which is republished in the Catalogue
of the Hebrew MSS. in the Imperial Library in St. Peters-
burg, the year in which it was finished is given according
to five different eras, (i) In 4770 of the creation which
synchonises with A. D. 1009 — 10. (2) In the year 1444
after the exile of Kino- Jehoiachin which is uncertain.
(3) In the year 13 19 according to the Seleucidien era or
the era of Contracts (13 19 minus 311) = 1008. (4) In the
year 940 after the destruction of the second Temple
(940 + 68) = 1008 and (5) in the year 399 of the
Muhammedan era = A. D. 1009.1

Equally emphatic and distinct is the statement of
the Scribe as to the person for whom he made the Codex
and the prototype which he followed. "I Samuel b. Jacob/'
he says on folio 474 a, "have written, vowel-pointed and
Massoretically annotated this Codex for the honoured

nynaa na" nai&i nrciaai rrropas itsssn ansa D^tr mpa min^n m »
nxna1? nw dvmti niaa wien ws&x wstk n;r bw p*o vnra D^twi ffnxa
n^ k\ti pa^irr1 ^ban n'bib nra-ixi a-raixi nina wwi s\hx n» trrn ,af?T2
np^Dabi ftmtttrt paa*? «vto trar rnabiab nw rnw ytrrn niatfa arfcw f^s]
awrn msa trte nsw htti *w ma pin1? irra-isi nina wi now tfm rrtRWi

♦ iTT'JM jlp mablab tftWll Comp. Pinner, Prospectus der Odessaer Gesellschaft
fur Geschichte und AUerthiimer, p. 81 &c; Odessa 1845; Harkavy aod Strack,
Catalog der Hebraischen Bibelhandschriften der kaiserlichen offentlichen
Bibliothch in St. Petersburg, p. 265 etc., Leipzig 1875.

CHAP. X. | The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 245

Rabbi Meborach the Priest b. Joseph surnamed Ibn Osdad,
may the Ever-living- one bless him."1 Again in the Epy-
graph on folio 479 a it is stated: "Samuel b. Jacob copied,
vowel-pointed and Massoretically annotated this Codex of the
Sacred Scriptures from the correct MSS. which the teacher
Aaron b. Moses Ben-Asher redacted (his rest is in Paradise!)
and which constitute an exceedingly accurate Exemplar." 2

( )f Ben-Naphtali nothing is known and no Codex
which he redacted has as yet come to light.3 The passages,
therefore, in which he differs from Ben-x\sher are only
known from the official Lists which have been transmitted
to us exhibiting- the variations of these two rival scholars.
The examples in these Lists may occasionally be supple-
mented by sundry remarks in the margin of the MSS.
and by notices in Massoretico- Grammatical Treatises of
mediaeval Grammarians. The latter source, however, cannot
always be relied upon, since the Grammarians not un-
frequently palm off their super-fine theories on the vowel-
points and accents as developments of the respective
systems of Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali.

Though the variations between Ben-Asher and Ben-
Xaphtali refer to the vowel-points Dagesh, Raphe, the
Metheg or Gaya and the accents, yet I have found in one
MS. four instances in which these two textual critics
differ in the consonants and textual readings.

Troia k:2h Tiaab pjrBBan m 'd&i THpii nana spy p f?RW "is ■

."n vsHs1 ntfint p i?ith *pr p pan
b^bdm p 'pehm mn *mnan n* no&i npy ana aipy p bMbw 2
rate xim -.pv pa irna im p nrcfc p pn« -nation nm? itwt /ixia&n D-rtnan

taET! "1X3 Comp. Pinner, Prospectus, pp. 85, 86; Harkavy and Strack,
Catalog, p. 269.

3 Like the Ben-Ashers there seem to have been several Ben-Naphtalis.
Fragments of a Treatise of one of them T give in the Appendix to this
Introduction.

246 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

Thus on Numb. XXVI 23 the Massorah Parva in Add.

1 525 1 states that Ben-Naphtali reads rHB4? of Pitvah, which
is the textual reading in this MS., but that Ben-Asher
reads PI3B^ of Punah.

(2) On Isa. XXX 2$ it states that Ben-Asher reads
"the rain of (1V*\1) thy seed," which it has in the text, and
that Ben-Naphtali reads it "the rain of (*pnx) thy land." 1

(3) On Jerem. XXVII 19 it states that Ben-Asher has
"that remain in this iyVl) city" which is the textual reading,
but that Ben-Naphtali has it "that remain in this QHND) land."2

And (4) on Ezek. XIV 16 the Massorah Parva in
this MS. states that Ben-Asher reads "but the land
(flft&tP iTnn) shall he desolation" and that Ben-Naphtali
reads it "but as for the land (iTPin TOftttf) desolation shall
it he"'6 making it conformable to Ezek. XII 20. I have only
noticed the last two variations in the notes of my edition,
but I have duly given all the four instances in the Massorah.4

Professor Strack has found three other variations
between these two redactors which also affect the textual
reading of the consonants.

On 1 Kings III 20 Codex Tzufutkale No. 87 states
that Ben-Naphtali like the Westerns reads rWp\ she was
asleep plene, whilst Ben-Asher like the Easterns reads it
PM^ defective.5

Trite as this difference may appear it affects two
important statements which bear upon the redaction of

i-pTK "'pnsi p r^mi "1878 p 1

♦pX3 '•bUM p .I'M ivx p 2

hTWI Htt&tP TIB3 p 3

4 Comp. The Massorah, letter n, §§ 595, 603 — 605; Vol. I, pp 576,
581, 582.

5 x 'n rw wsnisi ton p ,'b& raw ^nisxi ^nsa pi 'n-iy&b Comp.

Strack, Zeitschrifl fur die gesammte lutherische Theologie unci Kirche,
Vol. XXXVI, p. 611, note I, Leipzig 1875.

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 24 7

the current text. Maimonides emphatically declares "that
the recension of our MSS. is according to the well-known
Codex in Egypt, which contains the twenty-four sacred
books, and which had formerly been in Jerusalem for many
years in order that other Codices might be corrected by
it and that both he and all others followed it because
Ben-Asher corrected it and minutely elaborated it for
many years and revised it many times, as it has been
transmitted to us" and Levita who quotes this passage
from Maimonides adds "the Westerns in every land follow
Ben-Asher, but the Easterns follow the recension of Ben-
Naphtali."1

The Massoretic note from the Tzufutkale MS., which
is fully confirmed by the unanimous testimony of the
official Lists, as far as the difference between the Westerns
and Easterns on the passage in question is concerned,
discloses two important facts with regard to Ben-Asher
and Ben-Naphtali. It shows in the first place that Ben-
Asher and the Easterns have here identically the same
reading, which is contrary to the usual statement that our
Codices follow Ben-Asher who exhibits the Western
recension. And in the second place it is apparently against
the above cited declaration of Levita that it is the
Easterns who follow the text of Ben-Naphtali. The real
inference from this Massorah, however, is that it yields
an additional proof of the fact to which we have often
alluded, that our text does not uniformly exhibit the
recension of the Westerns and of Ben-Asher. It not un-

td nnia wtrw D*nat&a jrnm naa xin inx anana rbv uaaap naai '
•an ,paaia ban m vnri -anaa.n idbb mr6 n*m .naaa anunTa rrrw anaa
Tbsn ppwrw naa man a^ra imm ,nann ahstr ia pipi* ,-itwt p iww
rwtKn baa wimp bv jwid wia* pi -manna Tianattf nn^n naaa \naac
:*nna; pmrnp bv paaia nnia ■ran ,nnxn Comp. Levita, Massoreth Ha-

Massoreth, p. 114, ed. Ginsburg; and see below p. 267.

248 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

frequently follows the Easterns and Ben-Naphtali. Hence
it is unsafe to describe any MS. as Western and exhi-
biting the text Ben-Asher or as Eastern and following
the recension of Ben-Naphtali, simply because some of
its readings happen to coincide with what are believed
to be the redaction of one school or the other.

The second passage on which Professor Strack found
a Massorah, also referring to the consonants is Jerem. XI 7.
Codex Tzufutkale No. 10 states that Ben-Naphtali reads
here "and" or "even unto the city" and that Ben-Asher reads
it simply "unto the city." l Here too the MSS. and the
early editions are divided. For though the majority follow
Ben-Asher, still some MSS. and some of the best editions
follow the reading of Ben-Naphtali as will be seen from
my note on this passage. Yet it is perfectly certain that
the MSS. and editions which exhibit here Ben-Naphtali's
reading do not as a whole follow his recension. The most
interesting and instructive part of this Massorah, however, is
the fact which it establishes, viz. that the difference between
these two redactions consists in the presence or absence of
the Vav conjunctive and not in the presence or absence of
a Metheg under the Vav as is stated by Dr. Baer.'~

Jerem. XXIX 22 is the third instance quoted by
Professor Strack where the difference between these two
redactors affects the textual reading. Codex Tzufutkale
No. 84 states that according to Ben-Naphtali the textual
reading here is "and like (HilX^) Ahab" and that the Keri,
is "and like (Vn&Ol) his brethren"'* Here we have an important

1 J X\S% pb Tin HJltt 'SOSI riV ^nM pb Comp. Baer and Strack, Dikduke
Ha-Teamim, p. XIII note.

2 Comp. Baer and Delitzsch, Jeremiah, p. 125, Leipzig 1890.

p*ip pi :rro smai ^m p s*p vnx^i avo an*a* lrpp^iao *6n&3 p :<

Comp. Zeitschrift fiir die gcsammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, Vol.
XXXVI, p. 611, note I, and S. Pinsker, Einleitung in das Babylonisch-
Hebraische Punklationssystem, p. 126, Vienna 1863.

CHAP. X.J The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali

249

new Keri which is entirely different from the one exhibited
in the recension of the Madinchai as will be seen from
my note on this passage.

There is another record of some of the differences
between Ben-Asher and the rival redactors which is not
given in the official Lists, but which has an important
bearing" on the discussion of the nature of these variations.
On Gen. XLIX 20 Orient. 4445, fol. 40 &, has the following
Massorah:

D^&IX t2H

to* p

Gen.

XLIX 20

^jp^nsia

tftjp *fi$p

Deut.

XXXIII 28

byr*£r$%

bp ^snr

Judg.

XX 33

s?5a~rngS3&

raa rnpj$a

Isa.

XL 18

if?"ft"TSp

1*p isnyn

The difference, therefore, between Ben-Asher and
other redactors of the text is that he has Mercha in all
the four instances, whilst the others, probably the followers
of Ben-Naphtali, connect these two words with Makeph
and have Gaya under the first words. As this MS. is
undoubtedly of the early part of the ninth century, and,
moreover, as the Massorah in this Codex was added about
a century later, there can be no question about the real
difference in these passages between Ben-Asher and the
other Schools, though we have hitherto had no knowledge
of these variations. Indeed from the manner in which the
Massorite quotes this distinguished textual critic, viz. "the
great teacher Ben-Asher", without the usual benedictory
phrase "his rest is in Paradise, which accompanies the
mention of the departed,1 yields additional evidence that

1 Comp. the Epigraph py |JQ ini3 T£X p ntPtt p piTK Ifc^n in the
St Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009.

250 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

the Massorah in question was written in the life-time of
Ben-Asher.

With these preliminary notices before us we shall
be better prepared to enter into an examination of the
differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali which are
recorded in the official Lists. The Massoretico-Grammatical
Treatise which is prefixed to the Yemen MSS. of the
Pentateuch give the most lucid Summary of these differences
not only with regard to certain words which occur in sundry
parts of the Bible, but especially in the Pentateuch. With
regard to the Pentateuch it describes most minutely the
precise nature and the exact number of these variations in
each of the fifty-two Pericopes into which it is divided.
The differences between these two redactors of the text
which affect words occurring throughout the Bible are
given in this Treatise under the following six categories.

I. The proper name TDtW which with its different
prefixes occurs forty-three times in the Bible l constitutes
the first point of difference. According to Ben-Asher the
first ttf only is pointed and is pronounced Sin (IP) and the
second is entirely passed over being neither pointed nor
pronounced, viz. TDttfft^ Isachar; whilst according to Ben-
Naphtali both are pointed and pronounced, viz. IDtPt^
Issackar? It will be seen that according to this Treatise

« Gen. XXX 18; XXXV 23; XLVI 13; XLIX 14; Exod. I 3;
Numb. I 8, 28, 29; II 5 5; VII 18; X 15; XIII 75 XXVI 23, 25;
XXXIV 26; Deut. XXVII 12; XXXIII 18; Josh. XVII 10, 11 ; XIX 17,
17, 23; XXI 6, 28; Judg. V 15, 15; X 1; 1 Kings IV 17; XV 27; Ezek.
XLVIII 25, 26, 33; 1 Chron. II 1 ; VI 47. 57; VII 1, 5; XII 33, 41;
XXVI 5; XXVII 18; 2 Chron. XXX 18.

rvstsn pos mix K*srm \wx-\n pipn -osw nbfcia mpr ntwt p rrn '•a in 2
^nsD pi ;jn3Bn nr bv d^isi nator uaa nan imx s'W sbi ^p:^ p wn ptrn
♦-otottr iaa ?yg2 ajratrn D^im Tipr sin *a insbir Orient. 2348, foi. 25 a;

Orient. 2349, fol. 16 a; Orient. 2350, fol. 23 a — b; Derenbourg, Manuel de
Lecteur, p. 109, Paris 1871.

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben- Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 251

the Sin which Ben- Asher points has no Dagesh and this
reading is exhibited in MSS. Nos. 65, 68, 80, 122 &c. of
the St. Petersburg Collection.1 In the Adath Deborim
where the same fact is recorded, the remark about Ben-
Asher is almost identical, but the point of difference on
the part of Ben-Naphtali is entirely at variance with
the statement here, inasmuch as it says that Ben-Naphtali
pronounces the first Shin (V) and the second Sin (tP), viz.
^t^ET Ishsashar, and that it is Moses Mochah who points
and reads it "Ottfttf ** Issachar with two Sins.2 *"Ottf t^ Ishsachar,

t T : • 7 t : •

which is here stated to be the orthography of Ben-
Naphtali is the reading of MSS. Nos. 49, 54, 57, 59, 70 &c.
in the St. Petersburg Collection,3 whilst "DfrtP* Issachar,
which is here stated to be the orthography of Moses
Mochah is the reading of Codex Nr. no in the same
collection. There is yet another record about Ben-Naphtali' s
orthography of this name. In the Treatise entitled Points
of Difference between the Karaite and Rabbinic Jews4 we
are assured that Ben-Naphtali reads it IDtPE^ and this is
confirmed by the Massorah Parva on Gen. XXX 18 in
Orient. 2626 — 28 in the British Museum. These, however,
do not exhaust all the varieties in the orthography of
this name as exhibited in the MSS. The St. Petersburg
Codex which is dated A. D. 016 reads its "DtPt^ without

* T T

points in the first V in all the passages in Ezekiel (XLVIII

1 Comp. Harkavy and Strack, Catalog, pp. 71, 82, 84, 86, 93 &c

pon -arcm psD ptwnn jrarn 'an iipr *3 nw& mix s^br? ^nw pi 2
D-ro raa amp*) 'an "tpift irn nrna ntwai ,:n)bn m [bvl bian wi TJW? (&a

t^bf2Tl in DBlbn nn r"iafeftP '&D Comp. Strack, Codex Babylonians, p. 29,
St. Petersburg 1876. According to Pinsker, however, Moses b. Mochah reads
it IS'ttfcP Comp. Licknte Kadmoniot, p. 98, Vienna 1880, so that here too the
statement in the Adath Deborim is at variance with other records.

3 Comp. Harkavy and Strack, Catalog; pp. 90, 92, 104, 155 &c.

1 Comp. D^mm tronpn plbn in Pinsker's PTWip TMpb, p. 102,
Vienna i860.

252 Introduction [CHAP; X.

25, 26, 33) and this is also the reading in the Pentateuch
in Arund. Orient. 2 which is dated A. D. 12 16,

We have thus no fewer than six varieties in the
orthography of this name exhibited in the MSS. and in
the early editions.

(1) *Dt£N|^ with Dagesh in the Sin Add. 4445; Add. 15451;

Add. 9401; Add. 15250; Add. 1525 1; Add. 15252;
Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 4227;
the Complutensian Polyglot; the Rabbinic Bible
by Felix Pratensis 15 17; the Venice quarto Bible
152 1 and the editio princeps of the Bible with the
Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524—25.

(2) ^DtPE^ without Dagesh in the Sin, Ben-Asher, Orient.

2201; Harley 5710 — 11; Harley 1528; MSS. Nos. 65,
68, 80/ 122 &c; in the St. Petersburg Collection; the
; first edition of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482; the
first edition of the entire Bible, Soncino 1488; the
second edition, Naples 1491 — 93; and the third
edition, Brescia 1494.

(3) *DE^ the first Sin without vowel points, the Babylon

Codex A. D. 916; and Arund. Orient. 2 dated A. D.
1216.

(4) IpfcMP? with vowel points under both Sins, Moses b.

Mocha and MS. No. 100 in the St. Petersburg
Collection.

(5) *DtPfr? Ben-Naphtali.

(6) 1DEN2^ also given as Ben-Naphtali, is the orthography

in MSS. Nos. 49, 54, 57, 59, 70 &c. in the St. Peters-
burg Collection.
These variations which have no parallel in any other
proper name among the sons of Jacob are due both to
the birth of Issachar and to the part he played in the
history of the twelve tribes. The original orthography was
undoubtedly "Ottft^ = *OtP NiSP which denotes he bringefh

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 253

reward, referring to Gen. XXX 18, and ho taketh or receiveth
hire (comp. Ps. XXIV 5; Eccl. V 18; Esther II g &c.),
alluding to Gen. XLIX 14, 15. A similar instance of the
double signification of a name, the first referring to the
circumstances connected with the birth and the second
alluding to events in after-life, we have in the case of the
father of Issachar. He is called Jacob (2pV]) = Heel-catcher,
because at the birth he caught hold of his brother's heel
(Gen. XXV 26), and he is afterwards Jacob (3pX^) = Trickster,
because he deliberately tricked him out of his paternal
blessing- (Gen. XXVII 36). It is the latter circumstance
which underlies all the variations in the orthography.
Owing to his love of ease and comfort Issachar we are
here told preferred to recognise the supreme power of
the original inhabitants of the land and pay tribute rather
than engage in the struggle to expel them, as the other
tribes were endeavouring to do. For this reason Jacob
brands him as a hireling*, a burden-bearer to strangers:

Issachar [= the hireling] is the ass of strangers,

Couching down among the folds;

When he saw the rest that it was good

And the land that it was pleasant

He bowed his shoulder to bear the burden

And became a servant unto tribute.

In after time when this stigma cast upon Issachar
[= the hireling] wounded the national susceptibilities,
all sorts of interpretations were resorted to, to conceal or
obliterate this censure, as will be seen from the ancient
versions and the variations in the vowel-points of the text
itself adopted by different redactors.

Hence the variations in the orthography of "DtPE^
Issachar, have been adopted by the different redactors to
preclude the meaning he taketh hive, i. e hireling. D"13 1211

254 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

the ass of strangers, which was the original reading, as is
attested both by the Samaritan text and the Samaritan
Targum, has been altered in the Septuagint into to nalbv
£7tsd-v^ri68v = D1_2i l^n he desired that which is good, substitut-
ing Daleth (T) for Resh (")) in the first word and Samech (D)
for Mem (D) in the second. What this good represents is
manifest from the Jerusalem Targum II, which exhibits the
same alteration of letters and which renders it = 0*13 "Tfin

vv - T

XiV'Hixa Tan he desired the Law. The Jerusalem Targum I
paraphrases it S]*j3fl KtSDttf a strong tribe, whilst Onkelos
renders it pp3J3 Tl?? rich in wealth. As for the stigma
that he became "a servant unto tribute" the Septuagint
makes it into ysagyog a husbandman. The Jerusalem Targum
paraphrases it "his brethren shall bring him presents
because he bowed his shoulder t6 master the Law/'1 whilst
Onkelos makes this clause say the very opposite to that
which the Hebrew text declares. According to the Chaldee
Version it means "he will conquer the provinces of the
nations, destroy their inhabitants, and those that remain
will serve him and render him tribute."2 To such expedients
have the ancient Versions and the redactors of the Massoretic
text resorted in order to obscure and obliterate the other-
wise plain meaning of the faithfully transmitted consonants.3
In the ten passages where Issachar occurs in Chronicles
(i Chron. II i; VI 47, 57; VII 1, 5; XII 23, 41; XXVI 5;

-paa •nriK irb wn xir'niio *vbzb ^ans pa-w p pa irn xa-on dtik '

♦pnrt
prtea nb prr pro p-Kne^m pir-PTTp 'w *raay ^ina »aa,i 2

♦poa "'paai

3 For a full discussion on the alterations and import of this passage
we must refer to Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, 359 etc.,
Breslau 1857; Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenldndischen Gesellschafl, XVIII,
658 etc., Leipzig 1864; Jiidische Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaft und Leben, X,
101, Breslau 1872.

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 2f).r)

XXVII 18; 2 Chron. XXX 18), I have omitted to give in
the Notes the usual variant of Ben-Naphtali. The student
must, therefore, bear in mind the alternative orthography.

II. The second point of difference between Ben-Asher
and Ben-Naphtali is with regard to certain forms of the
verb ^ON to eat. According to Ben-Asher wherever a form
of this verb occurs with a suffix and the Lamed has Segol
(?), the Caph has Chateph-pathach (D), except in one instance
(Eccl. V 10), whereas Ben-Naphtali always points it with
simple Sheva (p).1 There are only six forms of this verb
which are affected in the vowel-points by this variation.
But as they respectively occur more than once, amounting
altogether to twenty-four instances, and, moreover, as
several of the identical forms are treated differently in the
same MSS. and early editions, it is necessary to describe
each passage separately in the order of the books in which
they occur.

It is only by so doing that Ben-Asher's rule can properly
be tested. The importance of this minute examination
will be seen when it is stated that some textual critics have
maintained that the punctation of these forms constitutes
a test whether a given MS. exhibits the Ben-Asher or Ben-
Naphtali recension.

In the examination of the passages which exhibit the
forms of this verb I am obliged to separate the fifteen
instances in the Pentateuch from the nine which occur in
the Prophets and in the Hagiographa, since many of the
MSS. which I have collated for this purpose only contain
the Pentateuch, whilst several have the Prophets and the
Hagiographa without the Pentateuch.

^fcron lnK-arc o^atwan bv spn nns^ ntwt p rm ntoa jiw1? to '
jnan na&& nrna rm mh .*6nw pi iWtkwti comp. orient. 2348, foi. 25a;

Orient. 2349, fol. 16a; Orient. 2350, fol. 23ZJ; Derenbourg, Manuel du Lecteur,
p. 109, Paris 1871.

256 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

The Pentateuch. — The following ten MSS. have
only the Pentateuch: Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2348; Orient.
2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient.
2696; Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; and Add. 15282.

(1) Gen. Ill 17.

PttteKfl Add. 9401 dated A. D. 1286; Add. 15451; Add.

15250; Add. 15251 ; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; Orient.

2626; the Lisbon edition of the Pentateuch 1491;

the second edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93;

the Complutensian Polyglot; and the first edition

of the Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim

1524—25.
iT^3Xri Orient. 4445, the oldest MS. known at present;

Orient. 2201 dated A. D. 1246; Orient. 2348; Orient.

2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 4227; Orient.

2451; Orient. 2629; Harley 5710 — 11; Harley 1528;

the editio princeps of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482;

the first edition of the Hebrew Bible, Soncino 1488;

the third edition of the Bible, Brescia 1494; the

Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1 5 1 7 ; and the

Venice quarto edition 1521. For the treatment of

the same form in Ezek. IV 12 which is the only

other instance where it occurs, see below No. 20.

(2) Levit. VI 11.

rwtotf* Add. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15451; and the
first edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488.

rQ^ON' Arund. Orient. 2 dated A.D. 12 16; Orient. 2201;
Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient.
2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626; Orient. 2696; Orient.
4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 11; Add. 15250;
Add. 1 5251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; the first edition
of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482; the Lisbon edition
of the Pentateuch 1491; the second edition of the
Bible, Naples 1491-93; the third edition, Brescia

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 257

1494; the Complutensian Polyglot; the Rabbinic
Bible by Felix Pratensis 1 5 1 7 ; the Venice quarto 1 5 2 1 ;
and the first edition of the Bible with the Massorah
by Jacob b. Chayim 1524—25.

(3) Levit. VI 19.

fl^SK' Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15282; Add.

i545i-
nj^ON* Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348;
Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451 ;
Orient. 2626; Orient. 2696; Orient. 4227; Harley 1528;
Harley 5710 — 11; Add. 15250; Add. 1525 1; Add.
15252; the first edition of the Pentateuch, Soncino
1482; the first edition of the Bible 1488; the Lisbon
edition of the Pentateuch 1491; the second edition
of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the third edition,
Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot; the
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 151 7; the Venice
quarto Bible 1521; and the first edition of the Bible
with the Massorah 1524 — 25.

(4) Levit. VII 6.

H^OX* Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15282; the first
edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488; and the third
edition, Brescia 1494.

rDJ73K* Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348;
Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient.
2451; Orient. 2626; Orient. 2696; Orient. 4227; Harley
1528; Harley 5710 — 11; Add. 15250; Add. 15251;
Add. 15252; the first edition of the Pentateuch,
Bologna 1482; the Lisbon edition 1491; the second
edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the Complu-
tensian Polyglot; the Rabbinic Bible by Felix
Pratensis 15 17; the Venice quarto Bible 1521; and
the first edition of the Bible with the Massorah by
Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25.

258 Introduction. [CHAP. X

(5) Numb. XVIII 10.

Ij^DXn Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient.
2696.

I^pxri Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348;
Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient.
2451; Orient 2626; Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley
5710 — 1 1 ; Add. 15250; Add. 15251 ; Add. 15252; Add.
15282; the editio princeps of the Pentateuch, Bologna
1482; the editio princeps of the Bible, Soncino 1488;
the Lisbon edition of the Pentateuch 1491; the
second edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the
third edition, Brescia 1494; the Complutensian
Polyglot; the Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis
15 17; the Venice quarto Bible 1521; and the first
edition of the Bible with the Massorah by Jacob
b. Chayim 1524—25.

(6) Numb. XVIII 13.

I^X' Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient.

2696.
"O^pfcO Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348;

Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient.

2451; Orient. 2626; Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley

5710 — 1 1 ; Add. 15250; Add. 15251 ; Add. 15252; Add.

15282; and all the early editions of the Pentateuch

and the Bible.

(7) Deut. XII 15.

U^K' Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient. 2696.

1!^?5N* Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient.

2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626; Orient.

4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 11; Add. 15250;

Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; and all the

early editions of the Pentateuch and the Bible.

(8) Deut. XII 18.

Ij^OXn Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient. 2696.

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 259

13^3Xn Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient.
2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626;
Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 11; Add.
15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; and all
the early editions of the Pentateuch and the Bible.

(9) Deut. XII 22.

Ij^OXn Add. 9401; Add. 15451 ; Orient. 2696.

"D^DXn Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient.

2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626;

Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 11; Add.

15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; and all

the early editions of the Pentateuch and the Bible.

(10) Deut. XII 22.

Ij^X^ Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient. 2696.

I^DX"' Orient. 2201; Orient 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient.

2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626;

Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — n; Add.

15250;. Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; and all

the early editions of the Pentateuch and the Bible.

(11) Deut. XII 24.

ttfewtf) Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient. 2696.

l^pXD Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient.

2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626;

Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 11; Add.

15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; and all

the early editions of the Pentateuch and the Bible.

(12) Deut. XII 25.

tteXD Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient. 2696.

I^DvSD Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient.

235o; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626;

Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 1 1 ; Add.

15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; and all

the early editions of the Pentateuch and the

Bible.

260 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

(13) Deut. XV 20.

I^DND Add. 9401; Add. 15451 ; Orient 2696; Orient.

4227.
I^OKD Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348;

Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient.

2451; Orient. 2626; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 11;

Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282;

and all the early editions of the Pentateuch and

the Bible.

(14) Deut. XV 22.

tttOXf) Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Add. 15282; Orient.
2696.

"U^Xn Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348;
Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient.
2451; Orient. 2626; Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley
5710 - 1 1 ; Add. 15250; Add. 15251 ; Add. 15252; and
all the early editions of the Pentateuch and the
Bible.

(15) Deut. XXVIII 39.

l^rixn Add. 9401; Add. 15451.

"DJiOXn Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient.
2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626;
Orient. 2696; Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley
5710 — 11; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add.
15282; and all the early editions of the Pentateuch
and the Bible. It is to be added that Orient. 4445
and Arund. Orient. 16 point it 1^3Xn with Tzere
under the Lamed.
The Prophets and the Hagiographa. — To the MSS.
which contain the whole Bible and which are quoted both
for the Pentateuch and these two divisions of the Scriptures,
I have here to add the following Codices: the two magni-
ficent model MSS. Arund. Orient. 16 and Orient. 2091 which
contain the Prophets and the Hagiographa; Orient. 2210

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 261

and Orient. 2370 which contain the Former Prophets;
Orient. 1474 which contains the Latter Prophets and Orient.
2212 which contains the Hagiographa.

(16) 2 Kings VI 28.

"B^IOl Add. 1 545 1.

13^3X31 Orient. 2091; Orient 2201; Orient. 2310; Orient.

2370; Orient. 2626—28; Orient. 4227; Arund. Orient.

16; Harley 1528; Harley 5710— 1 1 ; Add. 15250; Add.

1 5251; Add. 15252; and all the early editions of

the Bible.

(17) 2 Kings VI 29.

1^5*01 Add. 15451-

"0^3X31 Orient. 2091; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2210; Orient.

2370; Orient. 2626—28; Orient. 4227; Arund. Orient.

16; Harley 1528; Harley 57 10 — 11; Add. 15250; Add.

15251; Add. 15252; and all the early editions of the

Bible.

(18) Isa. XXXI 8.

tt^Kfl Add. 15251; Add. 15451.

lj^DXri Orient. 1474; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2626-28;
Orient. 4227; Arund. Orient. 16; Harley 1528; Harley
5710 11; Add. 15250; Add. 15252; and all the early
editions of the Bible.

(19) Ezek. IV 9.

l^kSn Orient. 2201; Add. 15451; and the first edition
of the Rabbinic Bible with the Alassorah by Jacob
b. Chayim 1524 — 25.

Ij^JND Orient. 1474; Orient. 2091; Orient. 2626 — 28;
Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 1 1 ; Add.
15250; Add. 1525 1 ; Add. 15252; and all the early
editions of the Bible with the exception of the
editio princeps with the Massorah by Jacob b.
Chayim,

262 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

(20 and 21) Ezek. IV 10.

Ij^xn twice Orient. 2201; Add. 15451 ; the fourth
edition of the Bible 151 1 — 17; and Jacob b. Chayim's
edition 1524 — 25.
"D^DKfl Orient. 1474; Orient. 2091; Orient. 2626 — 28;
Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 11; Add.
15250; Add. 1 5251; Add. 15252; the first edition of
the Bible, Soncino 1488; the second edition, Naples
1 49 1 — 93; the third edition, Brescia 1494; the
Complutensian Polyglot; the Rabbinic Bible by
Felix Pratensis 151 7; and the Venice quarto Bible
1521.

(22) Ezek. IV 12.

P!3^3Xn Orient. 2201; Harley 1528; Add. 15 251; Add.
1 5451; the fourth edition of the Bible, Pesaro
151 1 — 17; the Complutensian Polyglot; and the first
edition of the Bible with the Massorah by Jacob
b. Chayim 1524 — 25.

H^JKfl Orient. 1474; Orient. 2091; Orient. 2626 — 28;
Orient. 4227; Harley 5710 — 11; Add. 15250; Add.
15252; the first edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488;
the second edition., Naples 1491 — 93; the third
edition, Brescia 1494; the Rabbinic Bible by Felix
Pratensis 1 5 1 7 ; and the Venice quarto 1521.

(23) Ezek. VII 15.

13^3K> Add. 1 545 1.

13^38' Orient. 1474; Orient. 2091; Orient. 2201; Orient.

2626 — 28; Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 1 1 ;

Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; and all the

early editions of the Bible.

(24) Eccl. VI 2.

VblW not a single MS.

"D^DN1 Orient. 2091; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2212; Orient.
2626 — 28; Orient. 4227; Arund. Orient. 16; Harley

CHAP. X.J The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Napbtali. 263

1528; Harley 5710 — 11; Add. 15250; Add. 15251;
Add. 15252; and all the early editions of the Bible.

The above analysis discloses the startling fact that
by far the greater number of our MSS. and the early
editions follow the Ben-Naphtali recension and not that
of Ben-Asher as has hitherto been supposed. It shows that
out of the fifteen instances which occur in the Pentateuch
and for which I collated nineteen MSS. and nine early
editions; the Ben-Asher reading has some considerable
support in No. 1 alone. It has eight MSS. and four editions
in its favour. But even here the Ben-Naphtali recension
is exhibited in no fewer than eleven MSS. and five editions.
In all the other fourteen passages the Ben-Asher reading
is exhibited in only two, three or at most in four MSS.,
whilst the Ben-Naphtali recension is uniformly followed in
fourteen or fifteen MSS. and in twelve passages it is the
reading of all the early editions without exception.

A similar result is obtained from the analysis of the
instances in the Prophets and Hagiographa. Out of the
thirteen MSS. which I have collated for these divisions of
the Hebrew Bible, the highest number which support Ben-
Asher's recension is in the single instance described in
No. 22. Here Ben-Asher's reading is exhibited in four
MSS. and in four editions. But here too Ben-Naphtali's
recension has the greater support, inasmuch as it is ex-
hibited in seven MSS. and five editions. In the other eight
passages Ben-Asher's recension is followed by only one
MS. or at most by two MSS. In the case of No. 24 not
a single MS. or edition follows Ben-Asher, whilst Ben-
Naphtali's recension is exhibited in seven to thirteen MSS.
and in five out of the nine instances is followed by all the
early editions and in No. 19 by all the editions except one.

With this overwhelming evidence before me I did not
feel justified in displacing the simple Sheva from the text

264 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

(D) in these forms and in substituting for it Chateph-pathach (2).
The exception, however, which I have made is in Ezek.
IV 10 — 12. Here as will be seen from the above analysis,
this form is not only exhibited in several MSS., but in
several of the early editions. In these passages, however,
I have given the alternative punctuation in the notes.

III. The third point of difference between Ben-Asher
and Ben-Naphtali is with regard to certain forms of the
verb EH3 to drive away. As in the former case so here,
wherever the forms of this verb occur with a suffix and
the third radical has Segol (p), Ben-Asher points the second
radical with Chateph-pathach (n) with one exception, viz.
IHtnn and he drove him away (Ps. XXXIV i), where he
also points the Resh with Chateph-pathach, though the Shin
has Tzere; whereas Ben-Naphtali always points the Resh
with simple Sheva (I).1 Apart from the exception in
Ps. XXXIV i, there are only three passages which are
affected by this difference between these two Massorites.
From an examination of these three passages, however,
it will be seen that the vowel-points of Ben-Naphtali are
the rule both in the MSS. and in the early editions, whereas
those of Ben-Asher are the exception.
(i) Exod. XXIII 29.

W'^K Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15282; Add.

I545I.
"l3t£H3X Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient.
2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626 — 28;

vnbw pwi nnn irrrp aim amn nn& ntra p m nwrp \wb tei J
vibe pan bv rrcr xb nxi ,anbin -p&a "Dtthait xb ,T3$hpK fcjfia &jnb iaa nvrpa
nbftft pn 'am rvaa 'aanjni avtwi mwn ";s ibnn ibs irnn nnsr *6 nnp3
pi ; n,nn rrehri irm nnpa trials? ptrn nnn rrrr *6i nmx fins'1 Kin >d nriK
:inn naaa nnis rwi an 'nnE; Comp. Orient. 2348, foi. 25a— b; OrieDt. 2349.

fol. 16 a; Orient. 2350, foi. 25b; Derenbourg, Manuel du Lccteur, page 109,
Paris 1871.

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 265

Orient. 2696; Orient. 4227; Add. 15250; Add. 15251;
Add. 15252; Harley 1528; Harley 5710— 11; the editio
princeps of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482; the first
edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488; the Lisbon
Pentateuch 149 1 ; the second edition of the Bible,
Naples 149; — 93; the third edition, Brescia 1494;
the Complutensian Polyglot; the Rabbinic Bible
by Felix Pratensis 1517; the Venice quarto 1521;
and the first edition of the Bible with the Massorah
by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25.

(2) Exod. XXIII 30.

W*13K Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15282; Add.

i545i-
"DEH3N Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient.
2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626 — 28;
Orient. 2696; Orient. 4227; Add. 15250; Add. 15251;
Add. 15252; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 11; and all
the early editions without exception.

(3) Numb. XXII 6.

ttth;iK1 Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15282; Add.

1 5451; and the third edition of the Bible, Brescia

1494.
"IjthJUSI Orient. 2201 ; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient.

2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626 — 28;

Orient. 2696; Orient. 4227; Add. 15250; Add. 15251;

Add. 15252; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 11; and all

the early editions except one, viz. Brescia 1494.
We now come to the exception where we are told
that Ben-Asher points it lfltfTPl with Chateph-pathach under
the Resh (1) though the Shin has Tzere (p). From the
following description, however, it will be seen that here
too the reading of Ben-Naphtali is the rule in the MSS. and
in the early editions, whilst the recension of Ben-Asher is
very rarely followed.

26(3 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

Ps. XXXIV i.

IHEnri Add. 15251; Add. 15451.

intthjp'l Orient. 2201; Orient. 2212; Orient. 2375; Orient.
2451; Orient. 2626 — 28; Orient. 4227; Arund. Orient.
16; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 11; Add. 15250; Add.
15252; and all the early editions without a single
exception.

My own Codex No. 1 which is a beautifully written
Spanish MS. and which also has iriEHJP'l in the text,
distinctly states in the official List of variations that the
difference consists in Ben-Asher reading it int^l^H without
Gaya and Ben-Naphtali pointing it IJWiri with Gaya, and
this variation I have given in the note on this passage.

IV. The fourth point on which Ben-Asher and Ben-
Naphtali differ is with regard to the Dagesh in the Tav
in the forms of the word DTQ houses, when it has two
accents. According to Ben-Asher the word in question
occurs only twice with two accents and hence the Tav
has Dagesh in only two instances, viz. D^FD1) and houses
Deut. VI 1 1 and Vfi2l the houses thereof 1 Chron. XXVIII 1 1.

T T •*

This is evident from his statement in the Massorah that
there are only four words altogether in the Bible which
have the two accents and Dagesh in the Tav and that the
form DTQ houses, constitutes two out of the four instances.
According to Ben-Naphtali, however, there are more in-
stances where the form D^rQ houses, has two accents and
has the extra Dagesh in the Tav,1 viz. Exod. II 7; VIII 7;

"mr twn Dpirr ^na: p irn owe ^rca im nirx dto ptr6 bsi l

pn m bv TEbw -upk pi xsrwn m by d^id yqgflh rtnfoci by uas tjnbitfc

^dt rs ,y<rfi nai Dbixn man nx Aits bz d"*6» DTiai arm mb& Twa

T T • T

,vna nxi ,'xba dtoi jm ptw-n na-ia *npaa mba ranx "b nmoxaa

Jjl.Tnbn -]^X Xnn;i ,aSll7"bn na^l Comp. Orient. 2348, fol. 25 &; Orient.
2349» fol. 16 #; Orient. 2350, fol. 23 b\ Derenbourg, Manuel du Lecteur, p. no.
Paris 1 87 1.

CHAP. X. ] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 267

Deut. VI n; i Chron. XXVIII n; 2 Chron. XXXIV 11.
Here too both the MSS. and the early editions follow the
recension of Ben-Naphtali, inasmuch as they exhibit the
accent and Dagesh in all the five passages.

V. The fifth point of difference between these two
Massorites is with regard to the prefixes Beth {1) and
Lamed (?) in words which begin with a Yod which has a
Chirek (*). According to Ben-Asher the prefix in question
takes Sheva and the Yod retains the Chirek. Thus ^NHt^
Israel is ^&nfe^3 in Israel and ^jnttf^ to Israel; btiV^V
Jezreel with the prefix Beth is ^KJH?J2 in Jezreel, with Lamed
it is ^XXHr^ to Jezreel; HKT fear with the prefix Beth is
fWV? in fear, and with Lamed it is ilNT^ to fear. According
to Ben-Naphtali, however, the Chirek in question is taken by
the prefix Beth or Lamed and the Yod loses its character
as a consonant, ^K*lfeP with the prefix becomes SsHfc^S or
^RlftP^; so too ^RJHP becomes ^RJWa or ^HV^Vb and
HRT with the prefixes becomes flRTS and ilNT^. ' As this
pointing which affects hundreds of passages is in accordance
with the Syriac, it seems to confirm Levita's statement that
Ben-Naphtali belonged to the Madinchai or Eastern School
of textual critics.2

In this category of differences between the two
textual critics, the MSS. and the editions with very few
exceptions follow the recension of Ben-Asher. We shall
only mention two noticeable exceptions, since one of them
has given rise to a difference in the interpretation of the text,

rtvi ,n*n^ mrm wrfo .ik-ps bi&^b ^amra ,b*nrt bmwz bsi l

Tpn tipr *6i Twhtv "bnas pi ,nsn miK vntn rotai i^ks nvn mpr -raw p

t^^5 TfiD {TO 1HIK iraeF K^l Comp. Orient. 2348; fol. 25 fc; Orient. 2349,
fol. 16a; Orient. 2350, fol. 23Z7; Derenbourg, Manuel du Leclcur, p. HO,
Paris 1871.

2 Vide supra p. 247; and Levita, Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 114, ed.
Ginsburg

268 Introduction [CHAP. X.

viz. Ps. XLV 10. Though I have adopted in the text Spfl'ftjpS
among thy honourable women, which is the reading of Ben-
Asher, in accordance with some of the best MSS., viz.
Harley 5710— 11; Arund. Orient. 16; Orient. 2375; Orient.
2451; Orient. 4227; Add. 15251, I must state that the
majority of the MSS. which I have collated and the early
editions exhibit Tfl"Hj5*21, the recension of Ben-Naphtali.
This is the case in Orient. 2201; Orient. 2212; Orient.
2626 — 28; Add. 9401 — 2; Add. 15250; Add. 15252; Add.
1 5451; Harley 1528; and all the early editions without a
single exception. Hence the mediaeval Jewish interpreters
(Saadia, Rashi &c), who followed this reading, ignored the
silent Yod and derived the word from 1J33 to visit, to serve.
They took it as the plural of rn J33 (Levit. XIX 20) and
translated it thy female servants.1

The second instance where the Ben-Naphtali recension
has prevailed over the Ben-Asher reading is Prov. XXX 17.
The reading flfTjP*^ to obey, is exhibited in all the best
MSS., in Orient. 2201; Orient. 2212; Orient. 2375; Orient.
2626 — 28; Orient. 4227; Arund. Orient. 16; Harley 1528;
Harley 57 10 — 1 1 ; Add. 15250; Add. 1525 1 ; Add. 15252; Add.
21 161 and in fact in all the Standard Codices which I have
collated for this purpose. The same is the case with the
editions. All the early editions without exception have
this reading. With this overwhelming evidence before me I
did not feel justified in displacing it from the text and
substituting for it Ben-Asher's recension for which I could
not find any authority.

VI. The sixth point of difference between Ben-Asher
and Ben-Naphtali affects the presence or absence of the
Dagesh in the letters DDDIJD under certain conditions.
According to Ben-Asher, wherever \T1 is followed by

1 Comp. Ewald and Dukes, Beitrage, p. 36 etc.

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 269

flBDTQ and the accent connects it with *fi*1 he has it
Raphe in accordance with the rule which applies to iTIX.
Thus for instance he reads it IW5 »m Gen. XXIX 13;
and so in similar cases. Now Ben-Naphtali differs from
him in the following- seven instances where he puts Dagesh
in Caph after Wl Gen. XIX 17; XXXIX 15; Deut. II 16;
Josh. IX 1; Judg. XI 35; 1 Kings XV 29; and Esther V 2.'

We have still to consider the official Lists of the
differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali which
record the variants in each book separately under each
of the three great divisions, viz. the Law, the Prophets
and the Hagiographa.

The Pentateuch. — As is usually the case, the Scribes
have taken the greatest care in minutely recording the
variations which obtained in the Pentateuch between these
two redactors of the text. Hence in some MSS. not only
is the precise number of variations given in each Pericope,
but the nature of the difference is minutely described.
This is notably the case in the splendid Codex No. 1 in
the Madrid University Library dated A. D. 1280, folio
81 a — 82 &; in the Massoretico-Grammatical Treatise prefixed
to the Yemen MSS. of the Pentateuch: Orient. 1379; Orient.
2348; Orient. 2349 and Orient. 2350 in the British Museum,
and in the Mukaddtmat of Samuel Ha-Rophe.

Samuel Ha-Rophe or Samuel el-Maghrebi was born
in Maghrebi circa A. D. 1350 and died circa A. D. 1420.
He was Day in or Spiritual head of the Karaite community

nmp* tok p m m ay patia dwti ns= nis nr -p&on tor \ti boi l
•m m*?a nrssn vw^tp ^naa pi /am r&tf:: \ti iiaa rvix tas^a bv <ann
"m ,ian tor3 m swm rs w&n wi ,*\ban niKna m jhp*i nniR iniR-o
rri aswa bv ww ib'Ra pni ,rtaa vm -n^ban ^d raws vm ,anx arevo

t'BTTI TH \T1 ,D*^BJH *?3 Wl 1)22 W Comp. Orient. 2348, fol. 25 b; Orient.
2349, fol- 16a; Orient. 2350, fol 23Z?; Derenbourg, Manuel du Lecteur, p. no,
Paris 1871.

270 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

at Cairo. Amongst other works he wrote circa 1380 the
Mukaddimat or Introduction to the Pericopes of the
Pentateuch.1 At the end of each Mukaddima he not only
gives a description in Arabic of the number of Sedarim
and verses in the Pericope in question, but gives a table
in which he registers both the exact number of the
variations between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali and the
precise nature of each variant. This portion of the
Mukaddimat is of great importance, inasmuch as its author
by virtue of his position and office had the command of
the celebrated Ben-Asher Codex which his community at
Cairo possessed. It is from the Mukaddimat that I printed
in my Massorah the portion which sets forth the variations
between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali.2 The Lists of the
differences between these two textual critics appended to
each of the Pericopes in my edition of the Bible are also
from the Mukaddimat, collated with the Lists in the Madrid
Codex No. 1 and the Massoretico- Grammatical Treatise in
the Yemen MSS.

Owing to the special care which the Scribes exercised
with regard to the Massoretic materials appertaining to the
Pentateuch, some MSS. which contain the whole Hebrew
Bible and omit the Lists for the Prophets and Hagiographa,
yet carefully record the Lists for the Pentateuch. This is
the case in Orient. 2201 which is dated A. D. 1246, fol.
\ooa — 101b; Orient. 4227, fol. 270a — 271a; Add. 1525 1,
fol. $b — 5&; in the splendidly illuminated MS. Orient.
2626—28, Vol. I, fol. 180a— 184b; and MS. No. 7 dated
A. D. 1299 in the National Library, Paris. Besides these
MSS. which give the Lists for the Pentateuch alone, I
have also collated Harley 1528 in the British Museum ; my

1 Comp. Fiirst, Geschichte dcs Karaerthums, Vol. II, p. 283 etc.,
Leipzig 1865.

2 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, § 2qob — 298/;, p. 6--14.

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 271

own MS. No. i ; the Lists in the editio princeps of Jacob b.
Chayim's Bible with the Massorah, Vol. IV, Venice 1525—26
at the end; and the Lists in Walton's Polyglot, Vol. VI,
p. 8 — 13, London 1657. The List of the variations given
in the Summary at the end of each Pericope in my edition
of the Bible I printed from the Mukaddimat or Liturgical
Introduction to the Pericopes by Samuel Ha-Rophe al-
Maghridi, Orient. 2482 — 84; compared1 with the Massoretico-
Grammatical Treatise prefixed to the above-named Yemen
MSS. and with the List in the Madrid Codex No. 1.

Genesis. — In the Lists of Samuel Ha-Rophe the
twelve Pericopes into which Genesis is divided exhibit
thirty-nine variations between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. -
These I have duly given at the end of each Pericope.
They are as follows: (1) 1 + (2) 2 + (3) 1 + (4) 4 + (5) 1 +■

(6) 7 + (7) 3 + (8) 7 + (9) 2 + (10) 4 + (11) 5 + (12) 2 = 39.
In Pericope No. 8 which according to this Treatise has
only seven variations,3 I have added an eighth in Gen.
XXXVI 16:

This variation is given in the Massoretico-Grammatical
Treatise prefixed to the Yemen MSS. From this Treatise
as well as from the splendid Madrid Codex No. 1, I have
added in the Summary at the end of the first Pericope
the instances in which Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali agree,
which are omitted in the Massoretico-Grammatical Treatise.

1 The Arabic List of variations between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali
which I printed in the Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 6-14, is from this Liturgical
Introduction.

2 Cornp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, § 590 b, p. 6 — 7. The vowel points
attached to the Biblical words throughout this Treatise in my Massorah are
those which are given in Samuel Ha-Rophe's MS.

3 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, § 590 Z>, p. 6; with Derenbourg.
Manuel du Lecteur, p. 1 11— 115.

272 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

The importance of this addition may be seen from
the fact that in the very first Pericope (Gen. I i — VI 8)
where these MSS. emphatically state that Ben-Asher and
Ben-Naphtali agree in the punctuation of *nx \T let there
be light (Gen. I 4) and 71X13 WK whom I have created
(Gen. VI 7), Dr. Baer gives them in his List of differences
between these two rival critics without mentioning that
they are expressly excluded in some of the official Lists.1

Exodus. — The eleven Pericopes into which Exodus
is divided exhibit twenty variations. In this number both the
List of Samuel Ha-Rophe and the List in the Massoretico-
Grammatical Treatise agree.2 They are as follows: (1)1 +
(2) 5 + (3) 1 +(4) 2 + (6) 2 + (8) 3 + (9) 2 + (10) 1 +(11)3 = 20.
In two Pericopes, viz. No. 5 ("HiV = Exod. XVIII 1— XX 26)
and No. 7 (TOIID = Exod. XXV 1— XXVII 19) there are
no differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali.

Leviticus. — In Leviticus which consists of ten Peri-
copes, Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali exhibit sixteen points
of difference. Here too the number given by Samuel Ha-
Rophe and in the Massoretico-Grammatical Treatise in the
Yemen MSS. agree.3 The differences in the separate Peri-
copes are as follows: (1) 1 -f (3) 1 + (4) 2 + (5) 1 + (6) 1 +
(7) 1 -f- (8) 7 -J- (9) 2 = 16. In two Pericopes, viz. No. 2
(Itf = Levit. VI 1— VIII 36) and No. 10 (TiprQ = Levit.
XXVI 3 — XXVII 34) these two redactors of the text
display no difference.

Numbers. — Numbers which is divided into ten Peri-
copes, exhibits twenty-four variations between Ben-Asher and
Ben-Naphtali. They are as follows in the respective heb-

4 Comp. Genesis by Baer and Delitzsch, pp. 81, 82, Leipzig 1869.

2 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, § 592 &, p. 8 — 9; with Derenbourg,
Manuel du Lecteur, p. 115 — 118.

3 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, § 594 Z?, p. 9 — 10 ; with Derenbouvg.
Manuel du Lecteur, p. 118 — 120.

CHAP. X.J The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 273

domidal Lessons: (i) i + (3) 5 + (4) 7 -f (5) 2 + (6) 3 + (7) 3 -f
(g) 1 -f" (10) 2 = 24. In two Pericopes, viz. No. 2 (XEtt = Numb.
IV 2 1— VII 89) and No. 8 (DITTD = Numb. XXV 10— XXX 1)
there is no variation. The Massoretico-Grammatical Treatise
gives only twenty-one differences and even these vary in
four Pericopes from those given in the Mukaddimat. In
Pericope No. 4 (nbw = XIII 1— XV 41) the Yemen Treatise
gives five differences instead of seven, omitting XV 14
and 24. In No. 5 (mp = XVI 1 — XVIII 32) it gives one
difference instead of two, omitting XVI 28. In No. 7 (p^D =
XXII 2 — XXV 9) it has one more, four instead of three,
viz. ~bV he shall pour out XXIV 7 and in No. 10 (>JJD2 =
XXXIII 1 — XXXVI 13) it has one less, i. e. one instead
of two1 omitting XXXVI 1.

Deuteronomy. — In Deuteronomy which is divided
into eleven Pericopes there are nineteen differences between
Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. They are as follows according
to the respective Pericopes: (2) 5 -f- (3) 4 -f- (4) 2 -f- (5) 2 -f-
(6) 2 -f- (7) 1 -f- (8 and 9) 1 + (10) 2 = 19. Two Pericopes, viz.
No. 1 (onm = Deut. I 1 — III 22) and No. 11 (H3inn flXM =
Deut. XXXIII 1 — XXXIV 12) are without any variation.
The Treatise in the Yemen MS. emphatically states that there
is also no variation in No. 7 (Xinn >3 = XXVI 1— XXIX 8)
and therefore omits XXVI 19. It will, however, be seen that
the Mukaddimat declares as emphatically that this Pericope
exhibits one difference between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali
and that it carefully states in what the difference consists.2

Before passing over to the other two divisions of the
Hebrew Bible, I exhibit in parallel columns the differences
between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali on Leviticus as they

1 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, § 596/?, p. 12 — 13; with Derenbourg,
Ma unci du Lecteur, p. 120 — 123.

- Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, § 598^, p. 14; with Derenbourg,
Manuel ,/// Lecteur, p. 123—125.

274

Introduction.

[CHAP. X.

are transmitted to us in the official Lists of seven MSS.
and in the editio princeps of the Bible with the Massorah
by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. By the side of these I give
in the ninth column the readings in Orient. 4445 which
The Variations between Ben-Asher and Ben-

"!»■

*t-

rr>

»/)

1-1

~~s -

>-i

«*■

^)"

1— 1

(— 1

1— 1

n
is

n
k

X="

as;7
Si

13
11

1 ri.-

JA-

XL.

■

•

.r>

i-%

r
a

fl
ja

■

r
1

n
n

v.--

36'

T»>

173 rt

rt 2

f=j

*£;■

c .

Ki:

JJ:-

£ ^

E en

> ^

1
n

g\?Zl Q "V

s.-

5_
n

5
n-

ii i

Ja-

I02Z -JQ

.r^

■

JA-

66zi -q y

Sir

5
11

lili
.P«

j»

\I "I "N

■

JU 00

■

fl"

Ja-

r3 £>

-J-

■

fL-

n
«-»
n

5
n

lln

r:'

JA"

■

P-

J&M

13'

«*■

■

«r>

JA;-

-i^

§:

Ek.

li-
ft

5
ri

jfli'i

J3
5A

I.i
13
JA

JA-

«s

■

§•-

5
n

01 i.

13
1A

JA-

^ a

i j

.1^

w -c

§1

•

5-
ii

Tin

SSL

r.<

r
1

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 275

is the oldest MS. known at present, inasmuch as this will
show the condition of the Hebrew text in the life-time of
the two great redactors of the Bible as well as their
respective relationship to the ancient text.
Naphtali in the official Lists of different MSS.

m rn fO

% x > R B K R ' %

0
k

n n

3S «

n
k

n
as

n
k

n n

fl
as

F Ft U I: ' t *" S S t t U ^

£ SL £. jj u U FJ F" F~ p- p JN

F L» £ n J- k

<■ ■ i '

fl J I

fj ck n- nt J! n &" ft"

;- r~ ~P r i3 u P- P

i.i

•J

~TN

n n

B-S ?- Jf fr" F

11-

r«-

as<

as* 5V- r*

fl_
r

£ 3c:

•

■

1 1 1

o o

P-

j j

R -r

■

ZV- IV- Pv

fl_

p ~r

3S:

•j

:- JN J^ o

3 A-

ti-

r
i -

I •
1*

■

; p- j— s^ e^. j% .r- «•_ u- «■ «• j\ j\

g | ^ ^ i- i^

-J^ JT^ fl^ IK S- P -T- J^"

fl- fl ■ ■ • • i i o 0 0 0 p 'r r r

c c p- f- ,- ,-

i5, J?~ «• o- as as W- ^ w ja; S. 'A ^ %-

H r f^-- j- c t ^ J% i3n J3_ P- A j\ ^

a D «^ «* » ■ o o o o fc? fc„ r r

C ~* ^ s^. -F- -F" F-

H_ II fl- J3 J*- 3S ^, ^ ^: &r J3_ ^J. J5: ?:

fj &5~r-Fr-r-r°odo p- p* p ■ f -r -r

£ C t\ p»L C C £* S^

fl fl. u. 13 s^ pk:- ^'- ^' W" «" S- fl as= 3S:

F F .... . r f . .

2- b I I I ? i^^

fi it

ii n

276

Introduction.

[CHAP. X.

«*

rt-

(/)

—

i-i

l-l

X
X

t— 1

r-l

r"»

^»

«-»

*-*

JJ-

JfiT

35-

r.r

3C:-

zc--

3«i

•fi-

■

n
q

II
n

lit

II-

r
■

q
n.

■JXI

r
•

■'■&■■■
r
■
q

q
,fa

q
ii
a

ii
q
1 1
n

3«

r<~

3S"

3c;-

3C:

:•

q'n

ii'

*~"

ii'-

iii-

i»

j.
fa

■

1
■

■

•

u
n

q
ii
a

q
ii
ii

i£

c1"

3Cn

ii"

r-<

r.>

q
ii
a

ii
r.

r»

>-l

J3-

52-

35n

•f»-'-

i»

ji'~

B-

C-l

■

q
fa

II
q
1 1

n
q
n

°<

«j

0 ON

Q-

55-

35t

■tff

^'o'

■

•

■

q
.fa

ii
q
n

n
q
ii

* <

JJ-

35-

55n

ii^

t»

ii'

<3j CO

q
fa

q
.fa

ii
q

3C-

35t

ii-

ii'

fir

2 &

q
fa

.fa

n
q
ii
a

13-

*5n

5S-

ii.~

q
fa

.fa

n
q
n

11
q
ii

55t

55-

1*2f

f»

ii.

■

q
.fa

ii
ii

n
q

cfl

Q-

55-

35t

t»

ii.

n
q
ii

n
r.
ii

(4 S

35 •

S5i

ii-.

55;

i»

•&^

ii.

tj-

■

n
q

■

1-
fa

q
r

Sfi

CHAP- X. | lbe Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 277

**■

, ^

r«

^f-

«^-

**•

*■

«.

(■

ii
» »

II
k

p
k

>s_

Si-

■

M
U

I.I

3«:1
1-

ii-

h;:

II'

a
r

ii
n
u
c

n
n
jj

■

13
JJ

u
i

ij
■

13'

■

F-

i.i
q

■

-J>

I-

1 1-

n
rv

3C:

r- i

-r.fi

!■

g s

M *

1«

3 f.

SS'l

n
rl

n
n

■

c
c1-

n
n

fi
n

n
n

■

11-

II
i

■

13'

13'
F-

£1

,ri"

■

n'i
,j>

V.-

n
'c
n

h
n

n
n

F-

>5:;
i

11
i

■

13'

13'
F"

i.i
c
1^

ri"
i

■

3C=-

3«:

c
n

n
n
u

-F
11

3«l

■

26:

■

II-

11
i

■

fj
I

13 1

S3'
F"

■

Fit.

•

h
n

n
n

25 1

52:

■

rj'_

£•

fit.

■

n
h
n

n
n

ri
n

c
r~

n
n

3Cl

ii_
i

IJ
i

n
i

13.

13'

i.i

-j>

■

fit
■

■

n
n

if
n
n

X-

■

ii_
■

■

13-^
i

3C!l

n
rr

.1 v_

.f-

26 ■_

13"

!«•

11-

ii
n

■

Is"

-T^

n.
n>

£»'
a

n
r.
r.

jfv
n
n

•

n-_
i

■

13^
F"

■

n
r-

278 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

From the above Table it will be seen that the official
Lists often differ among themselves as to the precise nature
of the variants even in the Pentateuch, where the greatest
care has been taken to transmit the punctuation of Ben-
Asher and Ben-Naphtali. The attempt, therefore, to reduce
these variants into a system, to formulate rules from these
conflictingly recorded differences and to apply these rules
to other passages of the Hebrew Scriptures so as to
multiply instances which are not contained in the official
registers, is a task far more in harmony with the super-
fine ingenuity of some mediaeval grammarians than with
sober textual criticism. It is probably due to this fact that
the best Codices and even the MSS. which record the
official Lists do not follow uniformly the punctuation of
either Ben-Asher or Ben-Naphtali. Thus the oldest and
most beautifully written Codex of the Pentateuch, viz.
Orient. 4445 very rarely employs the Metheg or Gay a even
before Chateph-pathach, and yet it is the presence or ab-
sence of the Metheg or Gaya which constitutes fully nine-
tenths of the differences between these two redactors of
the text.

As regards the separate Treatise called in some MSS.
Dikduke Ha-Teamim which has come down to us in several
Codices in the name of Ben-Asher, its text in the different
MSS. and in the editlo princeps is as hopelessly irre-
concilable as that of the official Lists. The Treatise in
question was first published in the editio princeps of the
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis, Venice 1517^ where it
is described in the heading as the compilation of Ben-Asher.
A second edition of it was published by Leopold Dukes
under the title of Kontres Ha-Massoreth, Tubingen 1846,
from a MS. in the possession of Luzzatto. In this MS.,
however, no author's name is given to the Treatise. These
two editions, moreover, differ essentially in the text, and

CHAP. X.| The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 279

the recension published by Dukes barely contains one
fourth of the text in the editio princeps.

(i) In my Massorah I published five other recensions
of this Treatise. The first is under letter E, § 246; Vol. I,
p. 654 — 660. This recension I printed from Add. 15251
British Museum where it forms an appendix with other
Massoretic materials to the Hebrew text folio 444 a— 448 a.
It will be seen that the compilation is here ascribed to
Ben-Asher. The arrangement and text of this recension
approximate more closely to the editio princeps though the
latter contains about thirty-five more Rubrics.

(2) The second recension which I printed under letter
t2, § 44 — 75; in the third Volume of the Massorah, p. 41 — 43,
is from the beautifully illuminated MS. Orient. 2626 — 28
where it occupies the first and second lines of the
ornamental square in Vol. I, folio \b — 22 b. Not only
does the text of this recension differ materially from
that of the other Treatises, but the Rubrics are fewer and
are differently arranged. I could not, therefore, exhibit it
in a parallel column with the other recensions.

(3) The third recension which I have given in the
third Volume of the Massorah is from Codex Tzufut-
kale No. 15 for the transcript of which I am indebted
to Professor Strack. The Epigraph which according- to
Strack proceeds from the clever hand of Firkowitsch,1
ascribes the Massorah to Aaron Ben-Asher. The Massorah
itself consists of fifty-nine Rubrics of sundry Massoretic
import and constitutes an Appendix to an ancient and
valuable fragment of the Pentateuch. Of these only
twenty- two correspond to recension No. 1, whilst nine are
to be found in the additions in the compilation of Drs. Baer
and Strack.

1 Comp. Baer and Strack, Dikduke Ha-Teamim, Einleitung, p. XXXIII,
Leipzig 1879; with The Massoratt, Vol. Ill, p. 295.

280 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

(4) The fourth recension which I also printed in the
third Volume of the Massorah1 is from Codex Tzufutkale
No. 17 for a transcript of which I am indebted to Professor
Strack. The Codex to which the Massorah in question
forms an Appendix, contains an imperfect Pentateuch of
213 folios and is one of the most important fragments of
the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Epigraph which assigns the date A. D. 790
to this MvS. making it to belong to the grand-father of
Aaron b. Moses Ben-Asher, has manifestly been tampered
with and the Shin (t!? = 300) according to the statement
of Professor Strack has been made out of the original
Tau (ri = 400). But though no reliance whatever can be
placed on the date, still the MS. is very important.2 The
Rubrics which form the separate Treatise called Dikduke
Ha-Teamim are not grouped together in this MS. as a
distinct whole. They simply constitute sundry parts of a
somewhat extensive Massorah. As will be seen in my
reproduction of it, the Massorah itself contains ninety-six
Rubrics of diverse Massoretic import. The portions which
correspond to the Rubrics in the Dikduke, Ha-Teamim in
No. 1 are only nineteen and eleven correspond to the
additions in the compilation of Drs. Baer and Strack.

To exhibit in parallel columns the relationship of the
parts in this Massorah which correspond to the Rubrics
contained in the Dikduke Ha-Teamim I have numbered
them according to the order in which they occur.

(5) The fifth recension which I have given in the
third Volume of the Massorah, is the Massorah Finalis in
Codex Tzufutkale No. 19 for the transcript of which I am

1 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, § 1 — 96, p. 269 — 294.

2 Comp. Baer and Strack, Dikduke Ha-Teamim, Einleitung, p. XXX IV,
Leipzig 1879; with The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 294 where the Epigraph is given.

CHAP. X. I The Differences between Ben-Asher ami Ben-Naphtali.

281

likewise indebted to Professor Strack. The Massorah which
is incomplete consists of thirty-six Rubrics.1 Of these,
fifteen correspond to recension No. i and four to the
additions in the compilation of Drs. Baer and Strack.

Through the kindness of Professor Chwolson I have
received a copy of this Treatise made from the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009, which I give in extenso in the
Appendix. This exhibits the oldest homogeneous form of
the compilation in question. And as the MS. is a copy
of the Ben-Asher Codex made only about three or four
years after the Codex itself was conveyed from Jerusalem
to Cairo/2 it must finally decide the form and contents of
the. Treatise. On comparing the Appendix it will be seen
that the Treatise consists of only forty-two Rubrics instead
of seventy-six as given in the Dikduke Ha-Teamim of
Drs. Baer and Strack and that they follow quite a different
order. To give the student a proper idea of the import
of this valuable Treatise, I have made it the basis of
comparison with the other recensions. It, therefore, occupies
the first column in the Table.

Table I.

p H

1 0

H £

O "

0 a

ffl

0
en 0

§1

bvnvr 'rb* dt6k mrr "jnn

§21

§3

§3"

§2fl

mown rmn trpton tid

§22

§4

§3*>

§2*

ffran mo

§23

§5

§3^

§2^

Minan tid

§2

§3

-paia m* nw \t

0 §§3,4

§4

rbww mm rrc&twa *nr

§55

§5

§9

§5

rrvmn mo mo

§4i

§17

§10

irnaa ^ixa1? ,irnp3 rnrc

1 Comp. Baer and Strack, Dikduke Ha-Teamim, Einleitung, p. XXXV,
Leipzig 1879; with The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 310 — 326.

2 Vide supra, pp. 243. 244.

282

Introduction.

[CHAP. X.

1 o

.J t-^

H 55

+j to

a cm

'J. "~j

o M

O ft
•a v

. 0
en 0

§57

§6

§2

§17

§7

ffbisn "itrr taw awton nyrc

§58

§8

§5"

§8

nrnixn rrnbin i^K

§59

§8

§5*

§9

nrniKn nnbin l'rx

§6o

§15*

§10

jsrswii nnpan to

§6i

§i5^

§n

mpftn 'ito ttd

§62

§36«

§12

K-ipian p&ix nnpa ict

§37

§36^

§13

Dm sp^at nrtr

§^7

§35

§n

§14

nrnixn bsb rrw&n Kits? -hd

§28

§19

§21

§28

§55

§15

•"Bii two noTin to

§29

§§34,43

§9

§26

§29

§16

map trsn^ it»« *iftK i^d

§10

§6

§J9

§17

reman .mts6hts> jfc'D

§ix

§8

§20

§18

romt&i man j&o

§19

§33

§ I2

§9

§33

§19

nnx rewia hwt mn« tip j&o

§90

§15

§13

§21

§20

rbvxb vn\ mirn ..mnt mi

§20

§39

§13

§14

§53

§21

rcna pts6 j&o

§14

§18

§22

naop corto ^rty

§14

§15

§24

§23

D^BDh ntt6tP j&O

§i5

§16

§25

§24

DpIDSn *|1B j&O

§16

§17

§26

§25

ffplDttl TKm J&O

§17

§17*

§27

§26

Dnso ritt6ttD nnsi tin: j&o

§3i

§36

§37

§27

mpaa n^oibi tod j&o

§32

§39

§28

nmpa to maaiai ^i^d j&o

§35

§10

§4i

§29

pal [3 |&0

§34

§!'

§n

§42

§30

nxi nx pra

§33

§40

§3i

nnipa "wi nmp: rcbtp f&o

§56

§32

u?^m 0-1 n&bi nab j&o

§H

§5i

§33

hVok p»b baa

§21

§5i

§H

§50

§34

ro^n ptrb bs

§26

§14

§35

rrtrr pts6 baa

§H

§45

§36

maam \wb ba:

§25

§20

§44

§37

roa^a ptt?b baa

§12

§ I2

§47

§38

bbl b3 j&O

§ 19

§19

§30

§39

«npan baaaa win mn

§7

§40

two xar ttx am i&o

§22

§88

§44

§3i

§4i

mo iwj itt>mi i\m baa

§23

§89

§56

§12

§42

Miv iff? T-aan m baa

;HAP. X.J The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali,

283

Tabic II. Additions in

the Compilation of Drs. Baer and

Struck.

4J 0

-J M

4->' •*»

3 M

1 6

Tzufut.
No. 15

1 5?

0 M

Editio
princeps

0
c/5 0

C/j

pq"

§1

owtsn '•prrpia nae n?

§6

nrmx pan* rnnx -pn

£24

§8

Kipaa. *mi rrQTn ma -no

§13

bvn&b las xnpaatr; ro*n ba

§§23,24

§§30,31

§14

ffTia naa ^m anaia d1

§40

§§16,18

§34

§25

§16

dw&h mo» ntPJ? aw

§22

rrnsiab patina w

§23

ntatrab -laitr is* r6?K j^d

§20

§§20,23

§28

paasi wa

>.o

§32

rrw hxt p«6 ba

§ 4.4

§18

§34

'i:i a^nman n^pr\ bs

0 •'

§38

nans nnaa ,naiaa r6a ba

§22

§29

§43

BTTI DH ja^D

§46

birm Knar* ba

§48

rm by yaa ja^o

§49

bra nrrca nna ja"D

§52

ntr;na p^b j^d

§54

twn na*ri mp ba

§57

a"naia "isa pba rr

§4i

§58

nmps niw wan

§59

nrfcn nrniK i^k

§35

§60

rmnaa nvniK ibxi

§52

§6ia

nif?HJ nrmx ibx

§53

§6i£

rnaap nvma lbKi

§42

§ 62a

pTtt xbi p^p^i pba M>

§43

§62b

p-ip k*?i janan pf?a 'n prpsibrn

§63

a^na xbi np mo

§29

§64

np *6i a*na urn* a nn
Tana Knpan nna trrra Kin nn

§30

§&5

wai

§66

ja^a raw rra

§67

nnina mpaan

§18

§n

§37

§68

a"piaa,n aiaa

28 4

introduction.

[chap

3 M

^ 6

*» *° +» H

H 55 |0 H

Editio
princeps

C/J o

§§50,51

§69

xaii iaai xnmoa am

§36

§12

§38

§§48,61

§70

anaan bv wwr\ naaa

§7i

rn^ap -no

§72,

mpa pnnai pa»p p^a

§94

§59

§24

§73*

wba mpa 'ma n^ pHi

§95

§25

§73*

m^a prpBi^m

§93

§45

§74«

^f i**D

§93

§74*

b? 4 . ♦ pjTBibm

§^5

§43

§75

'iai pnat? nap rnrip ba pa

.....°

§42

§76

'ui armi pi mrip ^a pa

able

III

From the

Editio princeps.

H 55

a H

<3i M

T3 S>

<3 H

0 S.
W"ft

en 0

§26

am im nbi in a"a p b"k

0 i§27

a (,na im a 'na in in in p s/k

§32

pn piipi in rwn

§33

in pmpi pin (,na pp^n

"2*r\ 'ftxz TV (,na in in p aHx

§36

V'Xl 'pi

'axa '1 'na in in p a"x 'mbrn

§37

'' 'pi 'yn

0 !§38

iniKa aipia pba ra
'n*n 'iea M 'na in 'a 'a p pan 'H

§39

'' 'na im

;iaa 'K 'na in 'a (a p pan a"<

§40

'fl 'na im wi

§44

pin 'ipi xin r6» 'nai vb

§45

'ran aas 'aip 'a<n p^a 'a

§46

raip p aas 'ran p*?a 'a 'aimm

§47

*6 pipi X^ "'nai itd

§49

a^iain rbx xiaai spas

§52

mpxna *bnz: pi ipk p rnaif?a

§53

map

§54

Klpl

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali.

285

+i ON

3 6

4J t^

a M

111

13 "0

rrj IN

5 ?

Editio
princeps

MS.
A.D.1009

'Si

§55

-man -^nw pi -nwc p rabfi

§56

§57

a^TEmnp

§58

n-?np

§59

mDp

§6o

r6a&

o .

§6l

[D"nai]

The above Tables disclose the following facts:
(i) With the exception of the Treatise in the St. Peters-
burg MS. of A. D. 1 009, which occupies the first column,
in Add. 1 525 1 , which occupies the fourth column and editio
princeps in the third column, none of the Rubrics exhibited
in the other four columns follow any explicable order.

(2) The Rubrics in question are simply so many divers
parts of different Massorahs of the Dikduke Ha-Teamim
exhibited in column two, which Drs. Baer and Strack
have arbitrarily taken out from sundry MSS. and different
positions to fall in with their preconceived notions of an
independent Treatise.

(3) Even now no two corresponding Rubrics ab-
solutely agree in their wording* of the theme discussed
therein, and words and whole phrases have often to be
taken from one recension and inserted into the other.

(4) The ascription on the part of the editors of the
conglomerate Treatise exhibited in the second column
to Ben-Asher is unjustifiable.

(5) The Rubrics therein represent portions of the
Massorah which have been gradually developed from a
period much earlier than Ben-Asher to a time much later
than this textual critic.

(6) Many of the Rubrics exhibit various opinions
about the vowel-points and accents propounded by different

286 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

Massoretic Schools before the vowel-points and accents
assumed their present definite forms.

(7) As far as my collation of the numerous MSS.
goes I can safely state that I have not found a single
MS. which uniformly follows the rules about the vowel-
points and accents propounded in the name of Ben-
Asher in the Treatise which Drs. Baer and Strack have
compiled and have named "The Dikduke Ha-Teamim of
Ben-Asher".

(8) If, therefore, Codices which in their Massoretic
Appendices exhibit Rubrics ascribed to Ben-Asher, do
not follow his rules in the text, it shows that either the
rules do not belong to Ben-Asher or that they were not
generally accepted and that the opinions of other Massoretic
Schools were more popular. And

(9) It is most uncritical to correct the definite statements
in the official Lists which tabulate the precise nature of
the differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali by the
uncertain utterances in these highly artificial Rubrics. The
reverse process is far more critical. Any views expressed
in the conglomerate Treatise which do not harmonise with
the official Lists must not be taken as proceeding from
Ben-Asher.

Chap. XL
The Massorah; its Rise and Development.

The labours of the Massorites may. be regarded as
a later development and continuation of the earlier work
whitjh was carried on by the Sopherim (D^DID, yQcc^ccrslg) =
the doctors and authorised interpretors of the Law soon
after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity
(comp. Ezra VII 6; Neh. VIII i &c). And though it is now
impossible to describe in chronological order the precise
work which these custodians of Holy Writ undertook
in the new Commonwealth, it may safely be stated that
the gradual substitution of the square characters for the
so-called Phoenician or archaic Hebrew alphabet was one
of the first tasks.

I. The introduction of the square characters. That the Old
Testament was originally written in the characters which
with some slight modifications have been retained by the
Samaritans as exhibited on the Nablus Stone l is admitted in
the Talmud. Nothing can be more plain than the declaration
of the highest Talmudic authorities that the present square
characters are an innovation and that the Old Testament
was originally written in the Raatz, Libonaah or what is
now called the Samaritan alphabet.

Thus the distinguished R. Nathan; who was in the
College of R. Jehudah I (A. D. 140 — 163); and who compiled

1 Comp. Rosen, Zcilsclirift der Deutsche^ Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft
XIV, 622 &c., Leipzig i860.

288 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

a collection of Halachoth known by the name of the
Mishna or Tosephta of R. Nathan, declares "the Law
was originally given in Raatz characters" with which his
colleague R. Jose agreed.1 Again Mar Ukba, the celebrated
chief judge during the Patriarchate of R. Jehudah II A. D.
220 — 270 says:

"At first the Thora was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in
the sacred language, but in the time of Ezra they obtained it in the Assyrian
[= square] characters' and in the Aramaic language. At last the sages chose
the Assyrian [= square] characters and the sacred language for the Israelites
and left the Hebrew characters and the Aramaic language for the idiots.
Now who are the idiots? R. Chasda says the Samaritans. What characters are
the Hebrew? R. Chasda says the Libonaah characters."2

In accordance with these declarations we are told
that the present square characters "are called Assyrian
because the Jews brought them with them from Assyria"."

To invest it with authority this innovation, like many
other changes, was ascribed to Ezra himself.

Thus R. Jose says Ezra was worthy that the Law should be given to
Israel through his hand, were it not that Moses preceded him. For of Moses
it is said: 'And Moses went up unto God' [Exod. XIX 3] and of Ezra it is
said 'this Ezra went up from Babylon' [Ezra VII 6] Now as the expression
'went up' is used in the one case with reference to the giving of the Law,
so it is in the other. Of Moses it is said 'and the Lord commanded me at
that time, to teach you statutes and judgments' [Deut. IV 14], and of Ezra
it is said 'for Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Law of the Lord aud

1 HDV "13 tfTlKl mihn rttm pna imt an Jerusalem MegUla I, q.

urb narrai rnm tsmpn pa6i *-as 'anaa btnwb mm nan"a nVnna 2
-in^pn pwVi mwK ana bimtrb fib im-a *tsik p«6i rmw anaa mw "& -
^xa r'wrfi *nan an n&K rnam jxa r^omt pa6i rmnr ana niwrt ^rram
tmoian ana *nan an nax nnay ana SanhedHn 22b.
mtwta aTa rbw a^ bv m 'an nax . ♦ . jr-wit i&w snp; na^i 3

Jerusalem Megilla I, q: Babylon Sanhedrin 22a.

CHAP. XI. | The Massorah; its Rise and Development. kiS!)

to do it, and to teach Israel statutes and judgments' [Ezra VII 10]. But
though the Law was not given by him the writing was changed by him.1

Hence both Origen and St. Jerome who derived their
information from their Jewish teachers, record the same
thing-. The former states: "They say that Ezra used other
letters after the exile"/2 whilst the latter declares: "It is
certain that Ezra the Scribe and teacher of the Law after
Jerusalem was taken and the temple was restored under
Zerubbabel, found other letters which we now use; since
up to that time the characters of the Samaritans and of
the Hebrews were the same".3

That the original characters of the Law should have
been chang-ed, and that the hated Samaritans should still
be in possession of the sacred alphabet was, however,
more than some of the patriotic Rabbins could endure.
Hence we find R. Eliezer of Modin maintaining that the
Law was given to Moses from the first in the Assyrian or
the present square characters. He adduces as an argument
for his declaration that in the square character alone can
the name Vav for the sixth letter, denoting' hook in Exod.
XXVI 10 be justified, since it is only in the square character
that the import of the name corresponds to the form of
the letter, whilst there is no such correspondence in the

*6 ubtty* b*rwb it bt nmn pww mw mn 'nm n^ia w "i iron '
mis Kin naiK mn mwa ,trr6xn 5k nbv n^ai n&is sin n^&n ,rm lanp
sin rwaa ,nmn \brb maKn m^y t|x riTtin pta majtn rv*bv na ,5aaa n5r
■•a nam Kin mtpa ^aatrai a*pn aana na55 wnn nra m,T ma tviki naiK
r»Bts?ai pin 5xn«r,a na55i nw5i iti5k mm nmn ns xovnb inn5? pn mw
janarnT by nantw rim 5r nmn narro k5p *s by p|*i Babylon Sanhedrm 21b;

with Jerusalem Megilla I 9.

- qpafft ya^> toi> "Eodguv ttsQOLg iQijaaGQ-at psta ti/v ccl%ficdcooLccv
Monfaucon, Hexapla II 94.

3 Certumque estEsdram scribam legisque doctorem.post captaHierosolyma

et instaurationem templi sub Zorobabel, alias litteras repperisse, quibus nunc

utimur, cum ad illud usque tempus iidem Samaritanorum et Hebraeorum

characteres fuerint. Prolg. (laical, ad lib. Regum.

290 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

Samaritan.1 But as even some of the most zealous sages,
who regarded this question from a dogmatical point of
view, saw this opinion was contrary to the then ascertained
facts they tried to harmonise both statements. Hence
R. Jehudah I says: "The Thora was at first given to Israel
in square characters, but when they sinned, the characters
were changed into Raatz [= Samaritan], and when they
repented in the days of Ezra the square characters were
again restored to them as it is written: turn you to the
strong-hold ye prisoners of hope, even to day will I
restore to you the forgotten characters of the Mishna = the
Law" (Zech. IX 12).2 In accordance therewith R. Jehudah I
and those Rabbins who deny that the square characters
are Assyrian take JVTltPN to be an appellative and make
it denote the happy, the blissful, erect or beautiful characters.
The fact that the old Hebrew characters were still
current B. C. 139 — 40, that the Mishna and the Talmud find
such frequent occasion to forbid their use for ritual writings/
that many of the mistakes in the Hebrew text itself, and that
some of the variations between it and the Septuagint are
distinctly traceable to a confusion of the letters which are
similar in shape not only in the square characters, but in the old
Hebrew = Phoenician, Palmyrene &c, shows most conclus-
ively that all those alphabets which are simply tachygraphical
and caligraphical variations of the same characters were
simultaneously used and that the final conquest of the
present letters over the rival alphabets was achieved slowly.

san ai^a ^axu> kb-nd p *whn w aira nax nn^x p pratr w "on i
mm bw a^i lrrrc ama^n '•yi x&pe nai ,rrmr\ narvs nwK ana -mian iwb

ta'H'ia]?1? a^an Jerusalem Megilla I 9; Babylon Sanhedrin 22 a.

amy ha^a ■owai f$*b pb ^wn ixamrai rrnnn rorro tvnwm naix ^an 2

X~\b a^K rotrfc TJID avn aj rVHWK pb ^an: Jerusalem Megilla I 9; Babylon
Sanhedrin 22a.

:1 Comp. Megilla I 8: II I, 2; Yadaim IV 5.

CHAP. XI.J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 291

Judging- from the mistakes which are to be found
in the Hebrew MSwS. produced by skilful and professional
copyists during the middle ages despite the minute Mas-
soretic directions, it is perfectly certain that the guild of
Sopherim who were thus engaged in the delicate task of
transcribing- the text from the ancient alphabet into the
square characters committed similar mistakes, especially
when they had before them a script in which some of
the letters resembled each other. It is therefore only natural
to find that some of the errors in the present Hebrew
text are due to the transcription. They may be rectified
by going back to the old Hebrew characters where some
letters are similar though they are dissimilar in the square
alphabet. A few illustrations must suffice to establish this
fact.

(i) The similarity of A = X and A = n.

That these two letters were not unfrequently mistaken
because of their resemblance to each other is evident from
the Septuagint transliteration of proper names. Thus the
name p¥N Ezbon in Gen. XLVI 16, is 0cc6o^av = pjffl in
the Septuagint. There can be no doubt about it since the
Tav (n) is expressed in the Septuagint by # as is evident
from this very chapter where Dilp Kehath in verse 1 i, is
transliterated Kah&, H3DK Asenath in verse 20 is 'Aosvhft, and
^nB3 Naphtali in verse 23 is Necp&ali.

1 Sam. XXIV 10. The error here is due to the same
cause. The text as it now stands is ybV DPim and, or but
she spared thee. As this yields no sense, both the Authorised
Version and the Revised Version, following the example
of the Vulgate, insert mine eye in italics. This, however, is
contrary to the uniform usage of the verb. Besides the
passage in question, Din to pity, to have compassion, which
is only used in the Kal, occurs twenty-three times. In eight
instances it expresses the direct action of the person, viz.

292 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

i, thou or he, spared or pitied,1 whilst in fifteen instances
it describes the sparing or pitying of the eye.2 Now in the
passages where DIP! to pity, is the predicate of the eye, the
eye is invariably expressed. To supply it in this solitary
passage is, therefore, contrary to the uniform usage. Hence
there can hardly be any doubt that originally the text was
Dnsi but I spared thee, and that the present reading is due
to an exchange of Aleph (X) and Tav (fi). When it is
borne in mind that the Septuagint, the Chaldee and the
Syriac have actually the reading with Aleph, the mistake
will not be questioned. In accordance with my principle
not to introduce any alteration into the Massoretic text,
I have retained Dnm but she spared, in the text and given
the ancient reading in the margin.

Jerem. Ill 8 is another instance of a mistake arising
from the same source. The verse now stands in the Au-
thorised Version as follows:

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel com-
mitted adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her
treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

This is hardly intelligible. The prophet describes
and contrasts the conduct of the two sisters Israel and
Judah towards God, to whom they were both espoused.
Israel had first gone astray and had been divorced for
her unfaithfulness. But in spite of her guilt God was
willing to forgive her and take her back if she would
return. She refused, and as a punishment she was discarded.
Now Judah who saw the treacherous conduct and the
terrible sufferings of her sister, instead of taking warning
thereby, defied all fear and acted in the same incontinent

1 Comp. Jerem. XIII 14; XXI 7; Ezek. XXIV 14; Joel II 17; Jonah IV
10, 11; Ps. LXXII 13; Neh. XIII 22.

2 Comp. Gen. XLV 20 ; Deut. VII 16; XIII 0; XIX 13, 21; XXV 12;
Tsa. XIII 18; Ezek. V II; VII 4, 9; VIII 18; IX 5, 10; XVI 5; XX 17.

CHAP. XI. | The Massorah, its Rise and Development. 'J'.».">

manner. Hence because she saw that the terrible sufferings
of her sister were inflicted upon her by her offended God
for her wickedness and yet in the face of all this acted
in the same faithless and shameless manner, Judah is de-
nounced as worse than her sister Israel, who had gone
astray before her, and had, therefore, no such fearful ex-
ample and warning (comp. Jerem. Ill n). Thus it is Judah's
seeing her sister's conduct and punishment and not taking
warning by them, which aggravated her guilt and it is
upon her seeing all this that the stress is laid. To introduce
God, therefore, as a new subject and to make Him say
"and I saw" &c. is to mar the whole connection and flow
of the passage. All this is obviated by restoring the Tav
(D) for the Aleph (X). It at once becomes plain that Xim
and she saw, is the protasis and *]^P)1 and she went, is the
apodosis. Accordingly the passage oug'ht to be rendered:

Though she saw that for this very cause that backsliding Israel had
committed adultery I had put her away and given her a bill of divorce,
and treacherous Judah her sister feared not yet sh^ went and she also played
the harlot.

The Vulgate is the only version which exhibits this
sense and the Revised Version exhibits it in the
margin.

Ezra VI 4 exhibits a reverse instance, inasmuch as the
Aleph (S) has here been mistaken for Tav (D). According
to the present text we are told that Cyrus commanded
the Temple to be built

with three rows of great stones and a row of new timber

thus implying that otherwise the builders would use old
timber. To say nothing of the want of dignity implied
in such a decree, any one looking at the construction of
the two clauses of this passage in the original will see
that the Aleph has here been mistaken for Tav and that the
sentence is:

'294 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

Kr6n bbs pa n paara

rows of great stones three
and row of timber one.

The Septuagint has preserved the original reading
and the Revised Version exhibits it in the margin.

(2) The similarity of -fit = * and AT = 2C accounts for an-
other class of errors.

Exod. XIV 2, 9. It is owing to this cause that the
proper name DTnn Hachiroth, which occurs three times, is
twice rendered in the Septuagint by sTiavhv = m^nn the
village (Exod. XIV 2, 9), taking the Yod for Tzadi. This is
evident from the fact that mavhv not only is the Septuagint
equivalent for rn^fin in Exod. VIII 9, but is the translation
of "l^fl in no fewer than nineteen passages.1

In Isa. XI 15 we have the phrase lim &V1 which
by simple conjecture is usually translated with his mighty
wind. But the word U^V does not occur in the Hebrew or
in the cognate languages. It is now generally admitted
that as the Yod and Tzadi are alike in the ancient Hebrew,
the text originally had IfTH D¥PD.

(3) The similarity of )i = 3 and J=Q.

Ezek. XXII 20. In accordance with the present
Hebrew text, this passage is rendered both in the
Authorised Version and in the Revised Version:

As they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead, and tin. into the
midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it: so will I gather
you in mine anger and in my fury and I will leave you there, and melt you

It will be seen that in the first part of the verse three
verbs are used, viz. gather, blow and melt (IDj ,nGj >P3p),
and it is, therefore, only natural to expect, that the same

1 Comp. Levit. XXV 31; Josh. XIII 23, 28; XV 44, 47; XIX 8,
38, 39; Isa. XLII 11; LXII 9; Neh. XI 25, 30; XII 29; I Chrou. IV 32,
33; VI 41; IX 22; 25.

CHAP. XI. | The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 295

three verbs will be repeated in the second part of the
comparison. Instead of this only two are repeated, viz.
gather (V2p) the first and melt (IfD) the third,, whilst for
the second to blow (nD3) we have the tame expression
leave you or lay you as the Revised Version has it, which
mars the rhythm and parallelism. It is, therefore, certain
that the original Pe was mistaken for Nun and that ^D/IIT
and I will leave, should be Vinom and I will blow. This is,
moreover, corroborated by the next verse, where the
statement is repeated and where the three verbs in question
are properly given. So glaringly does this mistake disturb
the evenness of the passage that Houbigant, without knowing
the cause of the error, actually adopts the reading TinDm
and I will blow, and Bishop Newcome in his translation
of Ezekiel renders it:

So will I gather you in mine anger, and in my fury, and I will blow
upon you and melt you.

These few instances must suffice to indicate the great
advantages which may accrue to Biblical criticism by a
careful re-transcription of some of the difficult passages
in the present square characters into the archaic script.-
Hassencamp and Luzzatto l have shown the way in this
direction, but as yet few have followed it. The question,
however, about the development of the present square
characters from the earlier Phoenician and their introduction
into the Hebrew Bible, has been most ably discussed by
scholars both at home and abroad. The Treatises on this
points, which are most accessible to students will be found
ill the foot-note.'2

1 Comp. Hassencamp, Commentatio I'litlologico-Critica de Pentateucho
LXX &c, p. 57 &c, Marburg 1765; Luzzatto, in Kirchheim s Karme Shomron,
p. 106 &c.

2 Comp. Gesenius, Gcscliichte der hebraischen Sprache und Schrift,
p. 137 Sec, Leipzig 1815; Herzfeld, Gcschichtc des Volkes Israel, Vol. If,

29G Introduction. [CHAP. XL

The probable period during which this change was
effected may be ascertained from the fact that the Samaritan
Pentateuch which the Samaritans received from the Jews
circa 430 B. C. was still written in Phoenician characters
and that these characters were in use when Simon struck
the first Jewish coins in 141 B. C. As some of the variations
in the Septuagint are undoubtedly due to the similarity of
the letters in the Phoenician, and others are traceable to
the square characters, the struggle for the victory between
these two scripts must have continued for several centuries.
It was not till the time of our Lord that the Aramaic
characters finally prevailed over the ancient alphabets.
This is evident from St. Matth. V 18 where the letter
Yod (*>) is described as the smallest in the alphabet, since
this is inapplicable to the old Hebrew.

II. The division of the consonants into words. — Having
transliterated the text, the next function of the official
redactors would naturally be the division of the con-
sonants into separate words in accordance with the sense
traditionally assigned to the respective documents. Like
the work of transliteration, the process of the word-
division was a gradual one and probably extended over
several centuries after the Babylonish captivity. From this
part of the Sopheric labours we definitely learn that the
doctors of the Law who were periodically engaged in this
task had different traditions about the meaning of certain
passages and hence divided some words differently. This
fact is revealed to us in the Massorah itself which has
transmitted to us two or four Lists of words divided
differently according to the School of Massorites whence

p. 76 &c; Graetz, GeschicJite dcr Judcu II II, p. 400 etc., Leipzig 1876;
Driver, Notes on the Hebrew text of [he Books of Samuel, p. IX &c,
Oxford 1890; Neubauer, The Introduction of the square characters in Biblical
MSS. &c. in the Sludia Biblica ct Ecclesisiica, p. 1 &c.,. Oxford 1891.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 297

they proceed.1 These Lists, however, contain only typical
examples and there is no doubt that there were many
more such instances.

Incidentally we learn that i Kings XX 33 exhibits
another instance about the division of which the different
Schools of Massorites held different opinions. In this case
we are distinctly told that the Western redactors divided
the words in question one way, whilst the Easterns divided
them differently. And though the records of other Schools
have not come down to us, we know that the redaction
of the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint translation
was made exhibited a large number of passages in which
the words were otherwise divided.2 This shows that about
200 B. C. the School from which the present word-division
proceeds had not as yet established its authority over
the rival Schools of textual critics.

III. The introduction of the Final Letters. — As a con-
sequence of their anxiety to indicate more definitely the
separation of some words and especially biliteral particles3
which were more liable to be read together with other
vocables, the Sopherim introduced the double or five final
letters. The gradual development of these letters we learn
from a somewhat obscure anecdote in the Jerusalem Talmud
which is as follows:

Now as to the double letters in the alphabet the copyist must write
the initial letters at the beginning of words and in the middle of words and
the finals at the end. If he reverses them the Codex is illegal. It was said
in the name of R. Matthew b. Charash "j£¥3E [= the five final letters] are
a law of Moses from Sinai. What is "E^SE? R. Jeremiah said in the name
of R. Samuel who said it in the name of R. Isaac, they are what the Seers
instituted [^BSSSfc = TjSi' J)p from thy Seers]. Who are the Seers? It happened

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter 2, §£ 482, 483, Vol. II, p. 54, and vide
supra p. 158 &c.

2 Vide supra p. 159.

3 e. g. P]K |& TX 'D« "X &c.

298 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

that in a veiy rainy day the sages did not assemble in the college and that
the disciples did assemble. Whereupon they said let us constitute the college
that it should not drop. They then said why is it that the Scriptures have
two Mems, two Nuns, two Tzadis, two Pes and two Caphs? To indicate that
the Law was given by God speaking to Moses, and Moses speaking to Israel
[the a a being abbreviations of TiKa naxa], the Faithful One to the faithful
one [3 3 = JIBK3 JI3K3], by the Righteous One to the righteous [2T 2T = pnst p^TJ],
by the Mouth to the mouth [B B = HB MB], by the hand of the Holy One,
blessed be He, to the hand of Moses [B a = *p Sp]. The sages took notice
of these disciples, who afterwards became distinguished men and it is said
that R. Eliezer and R. Joshua were of them.1 {Jerusalem Megilla I 9).

The whole of this anecdote shows that these double
letters were then still a novelty and that they had not as yet
finally established themselves. As R. Eliezer and R. Joshua
lived at the end of the first century and at the beginning
of the second century of the present era we cannot be
wrong in concluding that these sages then determined to
enact that the double letter should be adopted uniformly
in writing the sacred Scriptures. As to the story in the
Babylon Talmud that the D^DI^ Seers, are the Prophets,
that these did not discover the double letters, but
simply resuscitated them, and that they were originally
given to Moses on Sinai, but that they had been forgotten
in the course of time,2 this is manifestly designed to
impart to the new invention a divine and most ancient
authority and is glaringly like the story about the square

wewen row iTVnna d^itwnn nnia rrn tj^RS D^iaan mmxn bz «
-["B2£D)2 nan trnn p ima »i atra ,^bb nrir> axi ,n&ipa a^nmn nxi rwnn
•p lrpnrra na pnsr "i bxiarc "i atra rraT "i ya^a ina ,^ea ntrab na^n
1B3B31 nyin rrab a^aan 1B3B3 *6ip t-ijio Bra rroa ,paia pbx prx jxa ,ahsi:rn
,awa aHa anan p ina pnax ^aa^ xbn mpn rra Tan firPK pa* »nipwnn
rp^nacb pnaa ,jaie^ jaxsa ,naxab naxaa ,*p *pa ,.ts ts r^tst ■""tst ,pa |"i3
|bia iiari a^aan jmx la^ei ,rraa btr it sp1? rrapn bis it epa ,naS nsa
♦jwa pin rian.T m *y\Tb "i pnax b^it anx *»

2 Comp. Sabbath 104; Megilla 2b— 3a.

CHAP. XI. | The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 299

characters.1 The explanation, however, of the Jerusalem
Talmud which makes the Double Letters the basis of, or
rather the mnemonic sign for the giving of the Law on
mount Sinai is not the only one which obtained currency
among the ancients. The Massorah takes the Five Double
Letters as setting forth the deliverance of the Patriarchs
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the redemption of Israel, the
advent of the Messiah the Branch of Righteousness.2

IV. The introduction of the matres lectionis. — To
facilitate still further the study of the unpointed con-
sonants on the part of the laity, the wScribes gradually
introduced into the text the mattes lectionis which also
served as vowel-letters.3 But in this branch of their labours
as is the case in the other branches, the different Schools
which were the depositories of the traditions as to the
import of the text, exhibited considerable diversity of
opinion owing to the fact that the traditions themselves
were not uniform. So great indeed was this diversity of
opinion about the respective traditions and the import of
the text of Scripture circa 300 B. C. that it gave rise to
the division of the people into the two national sects the
Pharisees and the Sadducees. These were not only the
custodians of the diverse ancestral traditions, but of the
Bible. They were the official interpreters and redactors
of the text in accordance with the views of which their
Schools were the representatives. It is, therefore, most
important to ascertain what the condition of the consonantal
text was on which these different Schools laboured and
into which the Sopherim introduced the above-named
changes in order to aid the laity in studying* the Scriptures.
But here we are faced with the difficulty arising from

1 Vide supra p. 290.

- Comp. The Massorah, letter K, S, 228, Vol. I, pp. 36, 37.

■ Vide supra p. 137 — 157.

300 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

the fact that not a single MS. of the Hebrew text has
survived which is of a date prior to the Christian era.
We are, therefore, deprived of the direct MS. authority
to tell us what the actual consonants were which the
Sopherim transliterated into the square characters, which
they divided into separate words and into which they
introduced the Final Letters and the quiescent or vowel-
letters, in accordance with the traditions deposited in their
respective Schools.

V. The consonants of the Hebrew Text and the Septuagint. —
In the absence, however, of any MS. of the Apostolic
age we have providentially the Greek Version which was
made by the Jews circa 250 — 200 B. C. This Version certainly
shows what was the amount, and approximately also
indicates what were the ' consonants of the Hebrew text
which obtained in some of the Schools at that period.
But before we accept its testimony it will be necessary
to examine into the character which this Version bore
and what were the opinions which the Spiritual authorities
of the Synagogue who had the custody and the redaction
of the Hebrew original expressed about this Version. The
story of the origin of this Greek translation is told in the
so-called Epistle of Aristeas and is briefly as follows:

Aristeas a Pagan, chief officer of the guards, and friend of Ptolemy
Philadelphus (285 — 247 B. C.) writes to his brother Philocrates that he
together with Andreas had been despatched by the king as ambassadors with
a letter to Eleazar the high priest of Jerusalem to send to Alexandria seventy-
two of the most learned men, six of each tribe, to translate for the Royal
Library the Divine Law, out of the Hebrew into Greek. To secure this favour
from the high priest, Ptolemy not only liberated 100.000 Jewish slaves, whom
his father Ptolemy Lagos carried with him to Egypt, and paid 660 talents
to their owners, but sent the following presents to Jerusalem. For the Temple,
vessels of silver, value seventy talents; vessels of gold, value fifty talents;
precious stones to embellish these vessels, value two hundred and fifty talents
of gold. For sacrifices and other uses of the Temple one hundred talents.

CHAP. XI. J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 301

At the receipt of the royal letter and the munificent presents, Eleazar dispatched
seventy-two elders, six of each tribe, with a letter to Ptolemy and a present
of his own copy of the Law written in letters of gold. After their arrival,
and being feasted and toasted for seven days, during which these elders bad
to answer seventy-two questions, they were conducted by Demetrius to a
superb mansion over the Heptastadium, where they executed the Version in
exactly seventy-two days, when Demetrius wrote it down from their dictation.
Demetrius then read the Version before the whole assembly of the Jews, who
declared it to be an exact and faithful translation. Whereupon a copy of it
was made in the presence of the seventy-two interpreters for the rulers of
the synagogue; and the Jews, by the desire of Demetrius invoked an im-
precation upou any one who should at any time make an alteration in the
Version. It was then read over to the king, who was profoundly impressed
with the sublimity of its contents and enquired why the poets and historians
of other nations did not mention it. To which Demetrius replied that they
dared not do it, because the Law is divine, and that the historian Theopompus
and the poet Theodectes, who attempted to incorporate it in their writings,
were afflicted by God, the one with the loss of his senses, and the other
with the loss of his eye-sight. When the king heard this he worshipped God,
commanded that the Version should be taken care of, gave each of the
seventy-two interpreters three changes of the finest garments, two talents of
gold, a cup of one talent, the entire furniture of a room, and sent to Eleazar
ten tables with silver feet, and the apparatus thereunto, a cup of thirty
talents, and ten changes of garments. Thus loaded with presents the seventy-
two interpreters went back to Jerusalem.'

It is now generally admitted that this Epistle which
was written about 80. B. C. is apocryphal. Still it was
accepted at the time by the official custodians of the
Hebrew Scripture both in Palestine and Babylon as based
upon current tradition. I^hilo not only believed in it,2 but
states that the Jews of Egypt up to his time annually
celebrated the day on which the Septuagint was finished,
and Josephus almost reproduces the story of Aristeas.:J
The Babylon Talmud, which describes the origin of the

1 A Critical edition of the Greek text of the Epistle of Aristeas by
M. Schmidt appeared in Merx's Archiv, I 241 &c, Halle 1870.

2 Comp. Vila Afosis, lib [I, § 5 — 7; ed. Mangey II T38 -14T.

3 Comp. Aniiq. XI V 2: Contra Apion IT. 4.

302 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

Greek Version, distinctly declares that it was composed
under divine guidance and that in accordance with divine
inspiration the seventy-two translators introduced into it
certain variations from the Hebrew original as will be
seen from the following:

Our Teachers only allowed the Scriptures to be translated into Greek.
R. Jehudah said when the Teachers allowed Greek it was only the Penta-
teuch, and that because of a certain occurrence with respect to king Ptolemy.
For we have propounded: It came to pass that king Ptolemy assembled
seventy-two elders and placed them respectively in seventy-two cells and did
not disclose to them why he had assembled them He then went to each one
separately and said to him: Translate me the Law of Moses your teacher.
Whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, inspired the heart of each of them
so that they all came to the same opinion and made the following alterations:
(i) Gen. I I; (2) Gen. I 26; (3) Gen. II 3; (4) Gen. V 2; (5) Gen. XI 7;
(6) Gen. XVIII 12; (7) Gen. XLIX 6; (8) Exod. IV 20; (9) Exod. Xll 40;
(10) Exod. XXIV 5; (11) Exod. XXIV II; (12) Numb. XVI 15; (13) Deut. IV 19;
(14) Deut. XVII 3; and (15) Levit. XI 6; Deut. XIV 7.1

The Version then on which the official custodians of
the Sacred original bestowed such high praise exhibits two
striking features. It is both slavishly literal in some parts
and seriously departs from the present Hebrew in other

irnian nTirwa ejK rmrr "i i&k tram -irar *6x innrr i-rnn Kb irmm »
^an "libra rroa mm ^an "tobm rroa dipdi mm -i&dd *6x rrnn xb rw
inx bs bxx Daaai jd^d na by srb rb^ vb\ dtq D"ya ja^am n^pt dt arap
la^aam r\xv inxi nn« bz d^d wapri jna ddd^ npa rrnn "b lana ar6 laxi nnxi
ton ,ma^ai atoaa dtk ntw?K rnnwna *rn D\"ito lb inroi nna nnb jbia
ntoai rma nan ,d*tq iariD *6i ,ima napai *oi syson dvd wavi "wn dtd
npa np'n ,didk npi? Daianni ^ip iann ddkd ■a rironpa mtr pnami ,anBP dp

D^XM IDt^ 1PK brUT "3D DP1D1 ,d*lK "OS KBfl3 bv Dn^DTI VDD DK1 int£\X nx

toi ,bm»* h3D "didkt n* rbw\ ,rtw mxa yanxi r\w trpito man** nxtrai
Dmx ^nb« 'n pbn t:>k rtiKtw dhd ipik nan xb ,tt rhv xb b*w ^aa ^aiaw
n* ib idtdi ,D-iDrb ma; kb ipk d^hk dti^k nan *]to ,a*wi tob n^nb
Kto hdp roan* sato to inpxp *asa naa-ixn nx ib ianD xbi a^ann rrrrat

tD^llTH hD IpPltP -lax11 Comp. Babylon Megilla ya; Jerusalem Megilla 1 9;
Mechilta, Exod. XII 40 ; p. 15/' ed. Eriedmann. For the import and cause
of these alterations see the Appendix to this Introduction.

CHAP. XI. | The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 303

parts. In some parts it not only follows the Hebrew order,
but reproduces the smallest particles and the peculiar
idioms, to such an extent that it can easily be retranslated
into Hebrew without changing the order of the words.
Thus for instance Gen. XXIV i:

Keel 'A§Qacc(i rjv nQSG^vr^Qog Jpl DITOKl

7ZQo(3s(3rjxcog i/fisycov D^D K-

■xal KvQiog TjvXoyrjos "pD niTl

xbv eA@QC>cc[.i %aza itccvra DrHSK riK

On the other hand in the midst of literal translations
we meet renderings which seriously deviate from the
present Hebrew text. A striking illustration of this kind
is to be found in Gen. XLI 48. Here the Septuagint
translates it:

and he gathered all the food of the seven years, in which was
the plenty in the land of Egypt

whereas the Hebrew which is properly translated in the
Authorised Version is:

and he gathered up all the food of the seven years, which were
in the land of Egypt.

The most cursory examination of the Hebrew text
shows that something has dropped out of it and that the
Septuagint has preserved that which is missing. The Greek
Version, moreover, is easily retranslated into Hebrew and
restores the lacuna, viz.

rcov bTCxa stoop sv olg r/v 7/ svd'rjvia sv rfj yrj Alyimtov

' T T ~ TT ' T "

That the deviation of the Septuagint has here pre-
served the text which obtained in those days in one
School of textual redactors is corroborated by the Sama-
ritan. The Samaritan recension has the very words which
the retranslation of the Greek into Hebrew exhibits. We
thus see that circa 200 B. C. the different Schools had
different redactions. Moreover, from the fact that the
Septuagint was held in such high estimation it is evident

304 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

that the Hebrew recension from which it was made was
then recognised as one of these redactions. The authorita-
tive custodians of the traditions had not as yet decided
to issue one uniform text.

Several important events, however, in the develop-
ment of the Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine now called
for a uniform standard of the Sacred text. The people
were distracted by their rulers who alternately represented
the tenets of Pharisaism and Sadduceeism, each claiming
to be the representatives and rightful interpreters of Holy
Writ. Alexander Janai, aSadducee, was succeeded by Queen
Salome, whose sympathies were with the Pharisees; she
again was succeeded by Aristobulus II, a Sadducee; and
he again was followed by his brother Hyrkanus II, who
favoured the Pharisees. For an exact parallel we have to
go to the commencement of the Reformation in England.
England was in like manner distracted by the vacillation
of Henry VIII, who one day became the defender of the
Roman Catholic faith and another day espoused the cause
of Protestantism; by the alternate powers of More, Fisher
and Gardiner and Cromwell and Cranmer; by Mary, who
succeeded to the throne after the good Protestant Edward VI.
As it happened in Palestine so it was in England, a standard
text or Version was produced in almost every reign, till
at last the recognised authorities fixed upon one which
met with general acceptance.

Another great event in the Jewish Commonwealth
which contributed to bring about the same result was the
establishment of public Schools throughout the country.
Simon b. Shetach (80 B. C.) introduced Upper Schools or
academies in every large provincial town and ordained
that all young men from the age of sixteen were to visit
them.1 At the age of five, moreover, every boy had to

1 Comp. Jer. Kethuboth VIII 11.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 305

learn to read the Bible.1 As a consequence it was strictly
enacted that the greatest care was to be taken that the
copies of the sacred books from which the Sopherim
imparted instruction should be accurately written.2 It is to
these facts that Josephus refers when he declares "our
principal care of all is to educate our children".3

The institution of reading the Pentateuch in triennial
and annual Pericopes in every Synagogue with the
corresponding lessons from the Prophets and the Hagio-
grapha,4 as well as the extensive use of the Psalter in the
Temple service also contributed to the necessity of pro-
ducing a uniform and standard text. The Sabbatic lessons
were respectively divided into seven small sections which
were read by seven different people who were called up
to the rostrum by the congregation or its chief to per-
form this function.5 It would, therefore, have occasioned
the greatest confusion in mind of the reader and indeed
have shaken his faith, if the few verses which he had to
read in one Synagogue exhibited one text, whilst the
same portion which he should happen to read in another
Synagogue disclosed a different recension.

These combined circumstances imposed the respon-
sible task upon the official custodians of the sacred text
to undertake a thorough sifting of the various traditions,
to collate the different recensions, and to give to the
laity an authorised Bible. This redaction is substantially
the same which we now possess. It was primarily directed
against the MSS. which exhibited the recension from

1 Comp. Abolh V 21.

2 Comp. Pesachim 12 a.

3 Josephus, Contra Apion. I 12.

4 Comp. Acts XV 21; Josephus, Contra Apion. II 17; Mishna,
Megilla IV 4.

5 Comp. Mishna, Megilla IV 2.

306 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

which the vSeptuagint Version was made, as well as against
the Hebrew text of the Samaritans. The original MSS.
which belonged to these Schools and which at that period
could not have been many, were readily disposed of by
consigning them to the sacred recepticle called the Geniza.1
But the Greek Version itself, like the Samaritan recension,
was beyond the control of the Sopherim, and hence could
not be destroyed. To meet this emergency it was declared
that it was not made by the seventy-two elders repre-
senting every tribe of the whole Jewish nation, but by
five and that the day on which it was made was as
calamitous to Israel as the day on which the golden calf
was substituted for the true God, because the Thorah
cannot adequately be reproduced in a translation.2 This
anathema was afterwards emphasised by describing its
accomplishment as a national calamity which was preceded by
three days of darkness and by placing the day on which it
was finished among the other dies nefasti on the eighth of
Tebeth* It was during the period, therefore, which intervened
between the ascription of divine authority to the Septuagint
and its being publicly anathematised that the present
textus receptus was being gradually developed and re-
dacted by the Sopherim or the authorised custodians of
the ancestral traditions. The portions of the Hebrew
vScriptures which diverged most in the recension used by
the translators of the Septuagint from the redaction put
forth by the Sopherim are Samuel, Jeremiah, Proverbs,
Job, Esther and Daniel. These were probeibly the primary

1 \ldc supra p. 156.

rrap Din rrm rw rmnn nx i*?an 'tobrb nrorc trap! ntraro ntw?a -
XTsnat, b-2 oannnb rhtp mmn nm-i vbv b:vn id nww di*3 ^jor^

Massecheth Scpher Thorah I; Sopherim I 7.

TO1 '2 nbwb -jtpin am ^tei ^n "M irar minn .-ansa nnt:n naiiatpa 3

Corap Halachoth Gcdoloth Taanith printed at the end of Megillath Taanith.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah ; its Rise and Development. 307

cause for the activity of the spiritual authorities to issue
a uniform and standard text.

The post-canonical authoritative Jewish writing's record
sundry rules by which the Sopherim were guided in the
redaction of the text. Some of these canons are now an
integral part of the Massorah, whilst others which are of
supreme importance have only been preserved in the
Talmud and in the Midrashim. These records reveal to
us the reasons why certain letters, words, phrases and
whole sections have an abnormal appearance both in the
Massoretic MSS. and in the printed text; why some ex-
pressions and proper names in parallel passages are appa-
rently at variance with each other. It is, therefore, necessary
to remark at the outset that these Sopherim were not
simply copyists. They were the authorised revisers of the
text. They not only decided which books are canonical,
but which of the various readings are to be inserted into
the text and which are to be put into the margin, which
and in what manner certain of the Divine names are to
be guarded against irreverence and which of the names
of idols are to be stigmatized, which of the cacophonous
expressions are to be changed into euphemisms &c. &c.

One of the classical passages which record the
functions of the Sopherim in this respect is to be found in
the Babylon Talmud (Nedarim 37 ^—38^7) and is as follows:1

mbr\ \"-\p xb) pYOl pTO *6i pnpi d-ibid tudvi ansic *npa '
1"?n nnx nopn -inx aneio -nt^r anata a-ap pK px ffnwo fcnpa "a-aa rwbb
vobm ma pTia 161 \"-p bx ■nina inpTX ,&m: -inx one iaip =icxn nnx
,L,x im nam nK wbn nb nnaaan vita dti^kti -ona btk ^kit ntwoi kpk
matem n«i r6a"n s; p^p *6i p-nai p"na *6i j^np j'^n omrii'm ^>k piam
J p-p x*?i p-na ,,s?n bxia tan dk 3:3 nxs-i ran pnrn titt Comp. also

Sopherim VI 8, 9; 77^ Massorah, letter I\ § 274; Geiger, Urschrift und
Uebersetzungen der Bibel (whose corrections of the text I follow), p. 251 &c.j
Breslau 1857.

II*

308 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

The pronunciation fixed by the Sopherim. the cancelling [of Vi
the Sopherim. words read which are not written in the text, and vice versa
words written in the text which are cancelled in reading, are a law of Moses
on Sinai [= according to a very ancient tradition]. The pronunciation fixed by
the Sopherim are for example """X land, country, which is pronounced """S
when preceded by the article, i. e. jHKTl the land, E"2w heaven, C~>'-
Egypt Sec. [which have a dual form without being duals]. The cancelling [of

Vav\ by the Sopherim is to be found four times in the word ~TX after, viz.
Gen. XVIII 5; XXIV 55; Numb. XXXI 2: Ps LXVIII 26; in T^?*?*? %
::ovsness (JPs. XXXVI J) Sec. Words read which are not written in the
text are r~£ Euphrates 2 ^am. VIII 3), U'"K a man 12 Sam. XVI 23),
Z's; re coming (Jerem. XXXI 38), rb to her (Jerem. L 29), tlM

(Ruth II 11). *^X r me Ruth III 5. 17). These words are read though they
are not in the text. The following words on the contrary are written in the
text, but are cancelled in reading. S3 / rya.y I2 Kings V 18; ; TS* and

Jerem. XXXII 11 ; let him bend (Jerem. LI 3): tfBTI five (Ezek.

XLVIII 16); EX if (Ruth III 12). These words are written in the text, but
are cancelled in reading.

I. Mikra Sopherim. — The first rule which relates to
the pronunciation of certain forms is simply grammatical
and does not constitute a difference of opinion between
the Schools of redactors.

II. Itur Sopherim (D'ISID TIEP). — The second canon,
however, which is called Itur Sopherim does affect the text
inasmuch as it authoritatively declares that the words in
question are to be read without the Wiv conjunctive. The
rule is manifestly directed against the recensions of the
other Schools and notably against the Septuagint and
Samaritan which read these words with the Vav conjunctive
as may be seen from my notes on these passages. In
common with the majority of the Massoretic MSS. and the
editions, I have given the reading of the Sopherim in the
t^xt and the alternative reading in the margin; where the
student will find the textual reading in each case described
as being one of the Itur Sopherim. It will be seen that
fhe record here does not specify the number of passages

CHAP. XI .] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 309

which come within this denomination. We must, therefore,
not take it for granted that these are all the instances
which exhibit the variations between the different Schools
as to the presence or absence of the Vav conjunctive. The
notes in my edition of the Massoretic text on Gen. XXXI 36;
XLVII 11; Exod. XVII 2, 10; XXII 29; XXIII 13, 28;
X XIV 20; Levit. XX 18; Numb. VIII 4; Deut. XIV 16 &c. &c,
show, beyond doubt, that the differences in the Schools
comprised a much larger number and that the instances
mentioned under the Itur Sopherim are simply typical
examples. Later Massorites, however, mistook these typical
instances for an exhaustive List and hence added the
heading to this Rubric four words or Jive words are &c. '
III. Words read which are not written in the text
(pVO X^l V^p)' — Ihe- third category consists of words
which according to the Sopherim have dropped out of
the text and which are to be supplied in reading. They
are as follows:

(1)2 Sam. VIII 3. — From the fact that the Sopherim
simply direct us to supply the word rns Euphrates in
reading, but did not themselves insert it into the text, it
is evident that it wras absent in the MSS. which obtained
in their Schools. The textual reading* "in 33 the River, with
the article was quite intelligible. There could be no
question that it denotes the Euphrates, since it is so used
in this very book.2 Some redactors, however, added rHQ
Euphrates, to make it more explicit and hence this reading
was exhibited in some MSS. As this is actually the textual
reading in the parallel passage in 1 Chron. XVIII 3 the
vSopherim direct that the two passages are to be made

1 B'HB'ID ~"i2> ybl2 "1 comp. The Massorah, letter I", § 274, Vol. II,
P- 384.

2 Comp. 2 Sam. X 16; also Gen. XXXI 21; Exod. XXIII 31 ; Ps.
LXX1I 8 &c.

310 Introduction. [CHAP. XL

uniform. This is the cause why the expression m3 Euphrates,
has found its way into the text here in some MSS., editions
and ancient Versions as will be seen from the note in my
edition of the Bible. The Authorised Version has also
inserted it into the text, whilst the Revised Version relegates
it to the margin.

(2) 2 Sam. XVI 23. — The text as it now stands
denotes: "And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he coun-
selled was in those days, as if he inquired at the oracle
[or word] of God." According to another recension, however,
there was the expression t^X a man, any one &c, in the
text after the verb b\Xp] he inquired, and the passage is,
therefore, to be translated: "And the counsel of Ahithophel
which he counselled in those days was as if a man [or
any one] had inquired at the oracle of God." This reading
is exhibited in some MSS., in several of the early editions
and in the ancient Versions. The Authorised Version which
follows the Keri in the former passage without taking any
notice of the Kethiv [= textual reading], consistently does
the same thing here, whereas the Revised Version which
on the contrary follows the Kethiv [= the textual reading]
in the former passages and relegates the Keri to the
margin, inconsistently inserts the Keri here into the text
and takes no notice whatever of the Kethiv [= the textual
reading].

(3) Jerem. XXXI 38. — Here the ancient redactors
state that the word D\NJ|1 are coming, has dropped out of
the text and direct us to supply it in reading, but they
themselves do not insert it into the text though its
omission in this common phrase is most glaring. It is,
however, in the text of many MSS., several of the early
editions and in the ancient Versions as will be seen from
the note in my edition of the Bible. The cause of its
omission here is very instructive inasmuch as it throws light

CHAP. XL] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 311

on similar omissions elsewhere. On looking at the text
it will be seen that the word DfcO = D^ND are coining, and
the expression DJO saith, are extremely alike. Hence when
the Scribe had written one and looked up again at his
prototype he naturally thought he had already copied both
and proceeded with the text.

(4) Jerem. L 29. — The variation here is simply re-
censional and does not affect the sense of the passage.
According to the Kethiv [= the textual reading] the phrase
literally means "let there be no escape", i. e. let none
escape, whereas according to the Keri we are to supply
in reading the expression flb unto her, which makes it "let
there be unto her no escape". This variant is manifestly
due to the difficulty felt by the later redactors in combining
the masculine verb *fp with the feminine noun fifths escaPe->
deliverance, especially in the face of verse 26 which is
undoubtedly the cause of the alternative reading. But it
is well known that when the verb precedes the noun it
does not always conform to it in gender (comp. Deut.
XXXII 38 &c). It is to be remarked that the Septuagint
and Vulgate which follow the Kethiv or the older recension
read here flE'^S her escape.

(5) Ruth II 11. — Here too the variation does not
affect the sense of the passage, but is simply dialectical.
According to the Kethiv it is simply b'3 all, and the Keri
directs us to supply the accusative particle TIX before b'2
and read ^3T)X. Though this is here distinctly given as
one of the passages in which a word is to be supplied in
reading it is not included in the Massoretic Rubric on this
subject. The Massorah, however, describes the absence
and presence of the particle in question as constituting
one of the differences between the Western and Eastern
recensions of the text. This is duly recorded in the note
on this passage in my edition of the Bible.

312 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

(6) Ruth III 5. — The two recensions exhibited here
affect the expression ^N unto me. According to the Kethiv
it is simply "all that thou sayest", whilst the Keri directs
us to insert in reading the word ^X unto me, i. e. "all that
thou sayest unto me". The former recension without the
expression unto me, is preserved in some MSS., in the
Septuagint and in the Vulgate, the latter is exhibited in
the text in many MSS., in several of the early editions,
in the Chaldee and in the Syriac, though the Sopherim
themselves did not venture to insert it into the text. The
Authorised Version follows the Keri, whilst the Revised
Version follows the Kethiv and gives the Keri in the
margin.

(7) Ruth III 17. — The seventh and last instance
given in the Talmudic record where we are directed to
insert a word in reading which is not in the text affects
the same expression ^H unto me. As in the preceding
passage the Keri is exhibited in the text in many MSS.,
in several of the early editions, in the Chaldee, the
Septuagint and the Syriac. Here too the Authorised
Version adopts the Keri, whilst the Revised Version
follows the textual reading and gives the Keri in the
margin.

It will be seen from the above that this ancient record
does not specify the number of the passages where words
have been omitted from the text. The instances are, there-
fore, simply to be taken as typical. That there existed
more passages in the recensions of other wSchools where
words had dropped out of the text is evident from the
parallel Rubric in the Massorah which treats on the same
subject.1 Whilst the Massoretic List omits the fifth in-
stance, viz. Ruth II 1 1 which is probably due to the fact

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter 2, § 487, Vol. II. pp. 54, 55.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 313

that it constitutes one of the differences between the
Westerns and Easterns, it adds the following- four passages:

(i) Judg. XX 13. — Here the Massorah tells us the
word *J3 sous of has dropped out of the text and directs
us to supply it in reading. In looking at the text the
cause of its omission is perfectly clear. It is due to the
fact that the first half of the word [Q'33 Benjamin, by which
it is immediately followed is ^3 and the Scribe naturally
thought that he had already written it. This affords an
instructive illustration of the source of some clerical
mistakes. As the sense of the passage is the same with
or without the expression in question, the textual critics
of the different Schools were not agreed upon its being
an omission. Hence some MSS. and early editions have
no Keri and they are supported by verse 20 of this very
chapter, others have the Keri whilst other MSS. again
have ^3 sons of, in the text which is also exhibited in the
Chaldee, the Septuagint and the Syriac, as will be seen
in the note in my edition of the Bible. The Authorised
Version adopts the Keri, whilst the Revised Version
follows the textual reading and puts the Keri into the
margin.

(2) 2 Sam. XVIII 20. — According to the testimony
of the Massorah the expression [3 has here dropped out
of the text and we are told in the Keri to supply it in read-
ing, so as to make it conformable to the well-known phrase
denoting for, therefore, because} Here again the omission
is due to the same cause which gave rise to the former
clerical error, p is immediately followed by p and as
the two expressions are very much alike the Scribe
omitted one.

1 Comp. || bV-'Z Gen. XVIII 5; XIX 8; XXXVIII 26; Jerem.
XXIX 27; XXX VIII 4.

314 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

(3) 2 Kings XIX 31. — In the redaction of some
textual critics the reading here simply was HliT fifcOp the
zeal of Jehovah, and thus differed from the parallel passage
in Isa. XXXVII 32. In the codices, however, which the
Massorites took for their standard the two passages were
identical. Hence the direction in the Keri that filN3¥ of hosts,
should be supplied here in reading. Still the evidence for
the former reading must have been very strong since the
Massorites did not insert the word into the text though
they believed it to have dropped out of it. Many MSS.,
early editions and the Versions have the Keri in the text
as will be seen from the note in my edition of the Bible.
The Authorised Version adopts the Keri, and the Revised
Version translates the textual reading, but puts the Keri
in the margin.

(4) 2 Kings XIX 37. — The fact that the Massorah
directs us to supply the word V22 his sons, in reading,
shows, beyond doubt, that according to the recension of
some Schools it was absent from the text here. For this
reason the Massorites themselves did not insert it into the
text, but simply put down the Keri against it in the margin.
That it was, however, the textual reading in the redaction
of other Schools in harmony with the parallel passage in
Jerem. XXXVII 38, is attested by many MSS., several of
the early editions and the ancient Versions as will be seen
from the note in my edition of the Bible. Here too the
Authorised Version adopted the Keri, whilst the Revised
Version translates the textual reading and puts the Keri
in the margin.

On a comparison of the ancient record in the Talmud
with the Rubric in the Massorah it will be seen that the
latter not only omits one instance and adds four new
passages, but that in the heading to the Rubric it fixes the
number of places where a word has dropped out of the

CHAP. XI. J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 315

text to ten. But as we have already seen, this number
is based upon later redactions and in the earlier re-
censions there were many more such omissions. The effect,
however, of this Rubric on the external appearance of
the text in these ten passages is remarkable. In many of
the MSS. and editions there is a vacant space left in the
text sufficient to contain the missing word and the vowel-
signs which belong to the Keri in the margin occupy by
themselves the lower part of the empty space. This device,
however, which imparts to the text such an abnormal
appearance cannot be of very ancient date. Two out of
the ten passages in question occur in the Latter Prophets,
viz. Jerem. XXXI 39; L 29. Now the St. Petersburg
Codex dated A. D. 916 which contains this portion of the
Hebrew Bible duly notes the Keri in the margin, but
does not exhibit this phenomenal vacant space in the text.
The later development of this vacant space according to
my opinion is due to the fact that these missing words
were inserted into the text in many MSS. and that the
Massoretic Revisers scratched them out except the vowel-
signs and put in the margin against each passage the
Keri. To avoid the process of obliteration and to guard
the Scribes against copying these words into the text
they left the curious vacant space with vowel-signs below
and accents above. On comparing Judg. XX 13; 2 Sam.
VIII 3 and XVIII 20 in Oriental 2201 which is dated
A. D. 1246 the student will come to the same conclusion.
In accordance with my principle, therefore, I have left
the Kethiv unpointed, given the vowel-signs of both the
Kethiv and the Keri in the notes and have discarded the
vacant space.

IV. Words written in the text, but cancelled in read-
ing. — According to the same authoritative statement, we
are assured that words have erroneously crept into the

316 Introduction. [CHAP. XI

text which must be cancelled. As in the former case, so
here the ancient redactors did not themselves remove
them from the text of their redaction, but marked them in
the margin as spurious. They are as follows:

(i) 2 Kings V 1 8. — From the MSS., the early editions
and the ancient Versions it is evident that there existed
a great difference of opinion in some recensions with
regard to the presence or absence of the particle SO now,
I pray thee, in the verse before us. In Harley 5710 — 11
which is one of the most beautiful and accurately written
MSS. this particle is in both clauses after the verb n^D^
and there is a separate Massorah against each of them,
remarking that it is to be cancelled. In other MSS. the
particle in question is absent in both clauses. This is also
the case in the first edition of the Prophets, Soncino
1485 -86; the first edition of the entire Bible, Soncino 1488;
the second edition, Naples 149 1 — 93; the third edition,
Brescia 1494; the Chaldee, the Syriac and the Vulgate. In
the majority of MSS., however, the particle X3 only occurs
in the second clause and it is here that we are told that
it must be cancelled to make it uniform with the first
clause. The Septuagint shows that it was in the second
clause in the recension from which this Greek Version
was made and that it was then not considered spurious.

(2) Jerem. XXXII 11. — There can be no doubt
that the ancient recensions differed here with regard to
the presence or absence of the particle before niXSH the
legal document. According to the record preserved in the
Talmud, the textual reading was originally m^ftrnfiNI and
the redactors direct us to cancel mF\W\. But though the
Massoretic Rubric which tabulates the spurious words
does not contain the passage before us, the original
reading m^armxi is still exhibited as the Kethiv or textual
reading in the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 916 for

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah ; its Rise and Development. 317

which the Keri substitutes m^m. The latter is the textual

T : • - :

reading in the ediiio princeps of the Prophets, Soncino
1485 — 86, and in the first edition of the entire Bible,
Soncino 1488.

(3) Jerem. LI 3. — According to the testimony of
this ancient record we have here an instance of dittography
where the Scribe has by mistake copied the same word
twice. Hence we are authoritatively directed to cancel the
second *pT he shall bend, in reading. The condemned ex-
pression is not exhibited in the text in Add. 21 161, in the
first edition of the entire Bible, Soncino 1488, nor in the
third edition Brescia 1494. This, however, is not the only
variation in the verse before us. The particles bit and ^Xl
in the first and second clauses are in Add. 21 161, Harley
1528 &c. not pointed "^N against, and ~^JO and against, but
~^X not, and ~^N1 and not. Accordingly the verse is to be
rendered:

Let not the archer bend his bow

Nor let him lift himself up in his coat of mail &c.

This is also the reading in the first edition of the
Bible, Soncino 1488; in the third edition Brescia 1494; the
Chaldee in the second clause, the Syriac, and the Vulgate;
and is adopted in the text of the Revised Version. The
Authorised Version follows the Kethiv.

(4) Ezek. XLVIII 16. — We have here another in-
stance of dittography, the scribe having by mistake written
Eton five twice. Hence we are directed to cancel the second
tPSM in reading. Many MSS. have not got it in the text
nor is it exhibited in the ediiio princeps of the Bible,
Soncino 1488; the third edition, Brescia 1494; the Chaldee,
the Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate.

(5) Ruth III 12. — The direction that the particle
DN here is superfluous after ^3 and is to be cancelled, is

318 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

due to a dialectical use of it at a later period of the
language. Hence some recensions in conformity with the
earlier usage dropped it, whilst other redactors retained
it. The Massorah has two Rubrics on the presence and
absence of this particle.1

It will be seen that the record in the Talmud does
not fix the number of these superfluous or spurious ex-
pressions in the text, but simply leaves us to regard them
as typical instances. The oldest separate Rubric in the
Massorah on this point is contained in the St. Petersburg
Codex dated A. D. 916. This important MS. gives the
List twice, once on Jerem. XXXIX 12 and once on Ezek.
XLVIII 16, and in both instances fixes the number at
eight. The eight passages are made up by the addition
of three more examples where the particle DX is described
as superfluous and is to be cancelled (2 Sam. XIII 33 ;
XV 21; Jerem. XXXIX 12); by the inclusion of Jerem.
XXXVIII 16 where it tells us that the particle DX before
*1EW is spurious and is to be elided, and by the omission
of Jerem. XXXI 1 1 which is one of the five passages
given in the earlier record in the Talmud.

V. The fifteen Extraordinary points. — Hitherto we
have considered the ancient record with regard to words
which have dropped out of the text and which are
supplied in the margin of the MSS and editions, as well
as words which have crept into the text and which the
marginal notes both in the MSS. and editions direct us to
elide. These Massoretic glosses and directions leave no
doubt as to their import. We now come to an equally
ancient and probably a much older official document which
is the cause of the abnormal appearance of no fewer than
fifteen words in the Hebrew Bible, but about which the

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter N, §§ 742, 743, Vol. I, p. 82.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 319

marginal glosses give no solution. All the information
which the puzzled student gets in the margin of the MSS.
and the printed text against each of these enigmatic ex-
pressions is that the letter or word in question has an
extraordinary point. And yet these points are of supreme
importance inasmuch as they exhibit the earliest result of
textual criticism on the part of the Scribes. The record
on this point has been transmitted in several of the post-
Biblical writings. The oldest form of it which is in the
Siphri on Numb. IX 10 is as follows:1

(i) Numb. IX 10. The He (.1) in Hpm afar off, is pointed [to denote]
that even he who is on a short journey and is defiled must not offer with
them the Passover. So also

(2) Gen. XVI 5. "The Lord judge between me and thee" [is pointed]
because she [i. e. Sara] said this to him [i. e. Abraham], only with respect
to Hagar. Some, however, are of opinion that it is with respect to those who
caused strife between him and her. So also

(3) Gen. XVIII 9. "And they said unto him where is Sara thy wife?''
[is pointed] because they knew where she was. So also

rvens rrn tub xaa Kim nai-ip -pna »*wc k'rtn ^v -mpa npim -p-ia ix "
naba ■wi bv *6x ib maa xbv *|rai "ra n aiau^ in iwa J nosn nx anar
rrw "n^x mtr mx vbx inaxr in narra snrab irn nana "^tsan bv wi
naswn nai*? naipm bv mpa naipai ronton ym *6i in kappa jkti pTi crrrp
nabn naix tit p ar-i .in5? baa iptw xb^ npism in xatva jy-p naipai ym x1?
in karpa : in1? San ptwi nru nmxa ram Dana x^x apy^ xaitr wyp yima
katra i aascy nx my-6 xbx la^n kbrc vby mpa amak jkai nx niynb rnx la^i
!?a m ibts J p mn j^rta ^xtt> vby nips xama ny nux naia ny b'imi ana
ia kappa :pan jb pnx rra xntr rby *npa p.nxi rwa npa mrx anbn nips
ninnaan in lorra tnnbn ins p-wp xnx rtn xntr [bv] jnuy mpa pntry jnw
y-rik ^:x c)x an^an arprcy *rk ,Tipa amy ny nsmsbn iab rrfeam irnnx »,-6
nanp npna rrn "sxp vSy -npa npim -pna naix nnx jxb *]x ,mina:n nx aa^
moan nx anay ntriy rrn *6 xaa rrm siphra, foi. i8a, ed. Frfedmanu,

Vienna 1864; Corap. also Aboth di Rabbi Nathan, Recension I, cap. XXXIV,
p. 100 and Recension II, cap. XXXVII, p. 97, ed. Schechter, London 1887;
Midrash Rabba Numb. IX 10, Parasha III, No 13, p. 20, ed. Wilna 1878;
Sopherim cap. VI; Midrash Mishit XXVI 24.

320 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

(4) Gen. XIX 33. "And he knew not when she lay down nor when
she arose", the point on HttlpSl nor when she arose, denotes that he [i. e.
Lot] knew not when she lay down, but that he did know when she arose.
So also

(5) Gen. XXXIII 4. "And he kissed him" ITpVl [is pointed] because
he did not kiss him sincerely. R. Simon b. Yochai says Esau was indeed
hostile to Jacob, but his bowels had then changed and he did kiss him
sincerely. So also

(6) Gen. XXXVII 12. "And his brethren went to feed his father's
flock in Shechem" is pointed because they only went to feed themselves.
Likewise

(7) Numb. XXI 30. "And we have laid them waste even unto Nopha"
is pointed because from thenceforward it was likewise so. So also

(8) Numb. Ill 39. "All that were numbered of the Levites, which
Moses and Aaron numbered" is pointed because Aaron was not of those
who numbered.

(9) Numb. XXIX 15. "And a tenth a tenth" the points are on jlltM?
tenth, because there was only one tenth measure in the Sanctuary. So also

(10) Deut. XXIX 28. "The secrets unto the Lord our God and the
revealed unto us and to our children for ever', is pointed to denote that
when ye shall perform the things which are revealed I will also reveal to
you the things which are concealed. So also Numb. IX 10.

Both the Midrash Rabba on Numb. Ill 39 and the
Aboth di Rabbi Nathan supplement the enumeration of
the ten instances with the following important statement:

Some say what do these points signify? Now Ezra [who has put them
there] declares if Elias should come and say to me why hast thou written
them [i. e. these spurious words?], I will answer him I have already furnished
them with points. But if he should say thou hast written them correctly,
then I will readily erase the points on them.1

It will thus be seen that the points were regarded
by the ancient authorities as marking the letters and words
in question as spurious and that the Prophet Elias, who is
to solve all doubts and difficulties, will give his decision

jniK nana n&H n&sn mb* ar ox kit? n&x *p k^k mpD nab im »

•|rr6w3 jrrnmp] pinax nss nnro jw *b lax" dki nrrbv *mp: -os lb ^aiK

CHAP. XI. | The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 321

on them when he appears. The practice of using- dots to
stigmatize words as spurious was not restricted to those
days. Later scribes continued the example of the ancient
Sopherim, as may be seen by the student of Hebrew MSS.
As the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 916 is both the
oldest dated MS. and is easily accessible to students in
Professor Strack's fac-simile, I will restrict my references
to this important reproduction. In Isa. LI 4, folio 41 b the
word b"N isles, is thus stigmatized in the text and >SP my
people, is substituted in the margin.1 In Ezek. XIV 11,
folio 133 the word >{?J?tt from me, is dotted and ^nxO from
me, is given in the margin as the proper reading.2 Here
the superlinear position of the vowel-points precluded the
dots from being put on the top of the word and they are,
therefore, put inside the letter.3 Students of Palaeography
know that it was also the practice of scribes who copied
Greek and Latin MSS., to indicate erasures by placing
dots above words and passages.4

With these facts before us we shall be better able
to examine the fifteen dotted passages in the Hebrew
Bible. It will be noticed that the ancient authorities already
quoted only tabulate the ten instances in the Pentateuch.
The other five passages which occur in the Prophets and
in the Hagiographa are minutely described in the Massorah.

1 Though the combination of D"*K isles, and D'ttK^ people, is to be
found in Isa XL! I; XLIX 1.

2 The passage, however, in Ezek. XLIV 10 favours the stigmatized
readiug.

3 For other examples see Ezek. XIV 13, fol. 133; XX 7, fol. 140a;
Hag. I 11, fol. 209 b; Hag. II 21, fol. 211a; Zech I 3, fol. 211 fr.

4 Coitid. Wattenbach, Schrifttafeln zur griechischen Palaeographic,

plate V, col. 1, line 24 where KAl is given as an instance from the Codex

Sinaiticus; Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie pp. 278, 279, Leipzig 1879;

Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography p. 74, London 1893.

322 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

As the Siphri is the oldest document from which all the
other Lists are derived; it is essential to examine the
import of these instances according- to the record in the
original source. We shall, therefore, discuss the respective
passages in the order in which they are given in the Siphri.

(i) Numb. IX 10 which is the first passage is also
given at the end of the List. In the first place it is stated
that the He in the word nprn afar off, is pointed, whereas
at the end of the List after quoting again the phrase
nplTl *H"Q in a journey afar off, we are simply told that
it is pointed (V^V lip}), without specifying which word or
letter is thus distinguished. On comparing, however, the
wording in Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10 it will be seen that the
latter harmonises with the phrase commonly used in these
instances, that it is the original formula and that the
specifying of the He is due to a later explanation or
expansion.

The explanation which follows, stating the reason
why the phrase before us is pointed, clearly indicates
where the points are to be. We are here told that even
he who is on a short journey, if he is defiled must not
offer the Passover. This shows beyond doubt that there
was in the original text a letter or word which when
cancelled yielded the sense required for this legal inference.
On comparing this verse with verse 13 we see that the
original reading in verse 10 was ^Tirtt. As the Vav is
ordinarily the conjunctive, the passage may have been
taken by some to denote that only he is to offer the
second Passover who was at the time of the first Passover
both defiled and on a journey. Hence the Vav in "]TD1
which is sometimes disjunctive ] was pointed to indicate
that it should be IX or, and it is this ix which now stands

1 Comp. Exod XII 5; XXI 15, 17; 1 Kings XVIN 27 &c.

CHAP. XL] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 323

for the originally pointed Vav (i) in sH*!^ or on a journey J
From the uniform reference to the He (n) in all the
ancient documents which treat on the extraordinary points ,
it is evident that the variation in the passage before us
also extended to the word PlprTl afar off, which some MSS.
read with He and others had it prn without He. As tH^I
way, journey, which is epicene is more frequently construed
with a masculine adjective, the He was pointed to denote
that here too the larger number of MSS. had it without
He and that it is, therefore, to be elided. Instances where
both nouns and verbs read in some MSS. with He at the end
and in other MSS. without, are also discussed in other parts
of the Talmud and whole Lists of them are given in the
Massorah.2 At a later time when the spiritual guides of
the nation were anxious to diminish the number of spurious
letters and words in the Hebrew Scriptures, the reference
to the reading "HVpl and T]12 IN was dropped and the
variation with regard to the He alone was retained. It was
then that the legal inference deduced from the reading
*[T"Q1 = "p"D IX was assigned to the pointed He (H) which
has been the cause of all the confusion.

(2) Gen. XVI 5. — It will be seen that here this
early record simply quotes the sentence "the Lord judge
between me and thee" as pointed, without specifying the
letter or word which is spurious. The explanation, however,
which follows, clearly shows that the Yod and Kaph (y)
are to be pointed and, therefore, are to be elided, since it
supplies the letter He (n) in their place reading it fiyj^

1 Comp. the able discussion on this point by Blau, Masorelische
Untersuchungen, p. 25 &c. Strassburg 1891 to which I am greatly indebted.
Dr. Blau properly emphasises the fact that the explanation which follows the
respective passages indicates the dotted letters and words.

2 Comp. Jerusalem Megilla I 9; IV 10; Sopherim VI 4; and vide supra
p. 144 &c.

324 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

mid her, i. e. Hagar. Accordingly the passage is to be
rendered: "the Lord judge between me and her". This fully
agrees with the immediately preceding verse. According to
the opinion of others the Kapli (i) is to be pointed and
He and Mem (Dfl) are to take the place of the elided
letter, thus reading it DfWJI and them., and the passage is
to be translated: "the Lord judge between me and them",
i. e. my traducers, those who stir up strife. The Massoretic
note in some MSS. NlfD TP bV T)p3 the second Yod is
pointed, is probably due to a later mistaken solution of
the original vbV T)p3 which was misread jnm 'V bV Tlpl
(3) Gen. XVII 9. — Here too the Siphri simply quotes
the sentence "and they said unto him where is thy wife
Sarah?" as pointed, without saying which word or letters are
stigmatized. The explanation, however, which contains the
reason for the extraordinary points indicates the word. It is
pointed we are told because "they knew where she is", which .
plainly declares that the interrogative expression fPX where,
is dotted and is to be elided, and that the sentence ex-
hibits a positive statement. Accordingly the passage is to
be rendered: "And they said unto him, As to Sarah thy
wife and he [interruptingly] said behold she is in the tent —
and he [i. e. the angel resuming] said I will certainly
return unto thee according to the time of life and Sarah
thy wife shall have a son". This is confirmed by the second
recension of Ahoth di Rabbi Nathan cap. XXXVII, p. 97,
and Sopherim VI 3, which distinctly say that the dotted ex-
pression is the interrogative ,TN where. The reading,
however, exhibited in these ancient authorities is not the
only variant which obtained in the MSS. The Codices in
other Schools indicate that it is the word V^N unto him,
which is dotted and hence is to be elided in accordance
with some redactions ' or that the letters Aleph and Yod

1 Comp. Dikdiike Sopherim on Baba Metzia 87 a; Dikdukc Ha-Teamim § 46.

CHAP. XI. J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 325

(>N) in vbx unto him, have the points, thus reading it 1^ to
him. It may be that the dots extended also to the Vav
in 1*108*1 (i. e. \X1) and that the original reading was
"ib 10*^1 cmd he said to him. This is confirmed by the
Septuagint.

(4) Gen. XIX 33, 35. — The classical passage in the
Siphri tells us that in the sentence "and he (Lot) knew
not when she lay down nor when she arose", which occurs
in verses 33 and 35, the word H^p^l nor when she arose,
is pointed (= is to be elided) "because he did know when
she arose". The desire on the part of later redactors to
reduce as much as possible the number of spurious letters
in the Bible gave rise to the opinion transmitted in the
Massorah that it is simply the second Vav in the first
passage where n0!)p3!l nor when she arose, in verse 33
it is plene, which has the dot, distinguishing it from
HEp^ in verse 34 where it is defective, because Lot knew
only when the elder daughter arose, but did not know
when the younger one arose. The device, however, is too
transparent since the presence of the letter Vav could not
possibly indicate the restoration of consciousness on the
part of Lot to know the infamy of the act into which he
had been ensnared. Indeed in some MSS. the whole word
TOIpai is dotted.1

(5) Gen. XXXIII 4. — Here the word IHptfn and tie
kissed him, is dotted because it was not in the MSS. of
the text. The passage is, therefore, to be rendered: "and
he fell on his neck and they wept". This is in accordance
with the usage in Genesis of the combined verbs "to fall
on the neck and weep" (XLV 14; XLVI 29) without kissing.

(6) Gen. XXXVII 12. — In the primitive record in the
Siphri the passage "and his brethren went to feed their

1 Comp. Rashi on this passage in Berliner's edition 18 6.

326 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

father's flock in Shechem" is adduced with the remark that
it has dots. But though it does not state on which letters
the dots are, it is manifest from the reason given for the
dots in question, viz. they only went to feed themselves, that
the words which have the points and which are to be
elided are DiTiX [X^'nx their fathers flock. This yields the
sense required by the reason given for the dots, viz. "and
his brethren went to feed in Shechem", and this is in
harmony with the phrase in the following verse where it
is stated DlpS D^P'l *p!"US tff?fi are not thy brethren feeding
in Shechem? Owing to the anxiety, however, to diminish
as much as possible the indication of spurious words in
the Bible, later authorities though retaining the same reason
for the dots restrict them to ~TW the simple sign of the
accusative, regardless of the incongruity that the absence
of this particle is made to yield the sense they went to eat
and to drink and to be merry (niDDnn^l DIDE^T ^ID^).1

(7) Numb. XXI 30. — It is remarkable that the Siphri
which has hitherto plainly indicated the dotted letters or
words in the reason assigned for the extraordinary points,
fails us in this instance. After quoting the passage D'Ettl
JOTft IV 11PN riDj IV and we have laid waste unto Nopha
which is unto Medeba, this primitive record remarks "it has
dots because even from thence forward it was also thus".
All we can deduce from this explanation is that by the
dotting or cancelling of some letter or word in the passage
in question, we obtain a rule which is to guide the con-
querors in future how to treat the conquered people or
cities. But what the original reading was which yields
this sense it is impossible to say. The first recension of
the Aboth di Rabbi Nathan emphatically states that it is

3 Comp. Midrash Rabba on Numb. IX 10 and Aboth di Rabbi Nathan
first recension cap. XXXIV, p. ioo, ed. Schechter.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 327

the letter Resh (1) in "itpx which, which has the dot, to
teach us that the Israelites destroyed the people, but did
not destroy the cities/ whereas the Midrash which also
says, that the Resh has the point, on the contrary declares
in the name of the minority it is designed to teach us
that the conquerors did not destroy the people, but only
the cities.2 No amount of ingenuity, however, can in the
present day deduce this sense from the presence or ab-
sence of the simple dot on the letter Resh.

That the present text is defective and that some dots
were originally designed to indicate its imperfection of
which the Resh in IttfX exhibits one of the variants, is
demonstrated by the Samaritan and the Septuagint. The
recension from which the Septuagint was made was:

T - : T ■ T :

And their seed shall perish from Heshbon to Dibon
And the women have yet kindled a fire against Moab.

This Version, therefore, cancels the dotted Resh, and
with this the Samaritan coincides. It is, moreover, to be
remarked that the Talmud not only reads #N fire, but
takes |"ISj as a verb denoting to blow, to fan, to kindle*

As the Septuagint undoubtedly shows that D*E?31 in
the first clause was read in some MSS. Wpy\ and women,
the plural of ilttfttj it is far more in consonance with the
parallelism and the rhythm of the line to point tPN in the
second clause ttffcjt = ttf*X men. An exactly parallel case where
the Resh in ItPN, according to the Massorah, is superfluous

wnrw -vzbft rush -iwdw Br*n bv Tipa iqtb ny iwi nr; np trtwi •

♦rnrtbn "O'mn s6i niaiKn
"iob» x"", ,p rrn f>rh& ?]Ktt> "iimcse «m by Tips ^u?n 1-12; ny dwi -

♦rnrna *6x maixn mm i6«?

1 Comp the explanation or Numb XXI 30 in Baba Bathra 79 a 1"

♦rns"3 ronx hnw rx itanv nr fro

328 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

and where tPN denotes men, is to be found in 2 Sam. XXIII 2 1 .
Accordingly with only one of the readings exhibited in
the Septuagint we obtain the following sense:

We have shot at them,
Heshbon is destroyed even unto Dibon
The women also even unto Nopha
And the men even unto Medeba.

It is probably this reading which underlies the ancient
opinion transmitted to us in the Aboth di Rabbi Nathan that
only the people were destroyed and not the cities since
they took Heshbon to denote inhabitants of that city to
harmonise with what follows.

(8) Numb. Ill 39. — After quoting the passage "all
that were numbered of the Levites which Moses and Aaron
numbered" the Siphri remarks, it is dotted because Aaron
was not of those who numbered. It will be seen that though
the Siphri does not specify the word which is thus
stigmatized, the reason assigned for the dots indicates
beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is pHSSJi and Aaron,
which has the points. The dotted word which is thus
simply, but unmistakeably indicated in the classical passage
before us, is expressly mentioned in the List of the Aboth
di Rabbi Nathan. Both in the first and second recensions
of this Treatise we are told that it is pHN Aaron,
which has the points. The cause for the existence of the
two redactions of the Biblical MSS., one omitting pHNl
and Aaron, and the other inserting it, is not far to seek.
The command to number the Levites was given to Moses
alone (Numb. Ill 14, 15), and in accordance with this command
we are told (verse 16) Moses alone effected the numbering.
In Numb. IV 41, 45, 46, however, it is stated that Aaron
took part in the numbering, whilst in Numb. I 3, 4 he is
expressly mentioned in the command to engage with
Moses in the numbering of the other tribes. Hence the

CHAP. XI. | The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 329

two textual recensions, one based upon Numb. Ill 14, 15
and the other upon Numb. IV 41, 45, 46. The Samaritan
and the Syriac which exhibit the MSS. of the former
School, omit the word pHXI in accordance with the dots,
whilst the Chaldee and the Septuagint follow the latter
School and retain pHXl in the text. We have already
referred to the anxiety manifested on the part of some
Schools to diminish as much as possible the number of
dotted or stigmatized letters. The Midrash in the passage
before us affords a striking illustration of this fact. In
spite of the explicit statement in the older document the
Midrash states that it is simply the Vav conjunctive in
pnxi which is pointed.

(9) Numb. XXIX 15. — In the passage before us
the Siphri distinctly declares that the whole word JiltSW
tenth deal, is dotted and hence is to be elided, because there
was only one tenth deal measure in the Sanctuary. This
is also the declaration in the List of the second recension
of the Aboth di Rabbi Nathan. In the chapter before us
the tenth deal measure occurs three times, viz. XXI 4,
where it is simply p'llStttt and a tenth deal; in verse 10,
where it is p'*H£J? p'l'EW reduplicated a several tenth deal,
and in the passage here, viz. verse 15, where the MSS.
manifestly differed. Some redactions read it here singly
in conformity with verse 4, whilst others read it in the
reduplicated form in harmony with verse 10. According
to the testimony of the Siphri and the Aboth di Rabbi
Nathan it is to be read here as in verse 4. The conflict-
ing statements in the later authorities that it is only the
Vav plene in plWl which is pointed does not account for
the inference that there was only one tenth deal measure
in the Sanctuary and is, moreover, due to the anxiety to
diminish as much as possible the number of the stigmatized
letters.

330 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

(10) Deut. XXIX 28. — The Siphri after quoting

this verse says that it has the dots and without specifiying

where the dots are, remarks that the reason for their being

here is to indicate that "when ye shall have performed

the things which are revealed I will also disclose to you the

things which are concealed". This plainly shows that the dots

here referred to are to be on the words ^li^X flllT^ to the

.... T

Lord our God, and that the words in question are to be elided.
When these are cancelled we obtain the sense: "The secret
things and the 1 evealed things belong to us and to our children
for ever if we do all the words of this Law." That is the
secret things or the doctrines which have not as yet been
revealed (comp. Deut. XXX 11— 14) belong to us and our
children or will be disclosed to us if we do all the
words of this Law which have been revealed to us. It is
remarkable that Rashi already expresses the opinion that
the words 13i"6n HliT^ to the Lord our God, ought to have
been pointed, but that the reverence for the Divine name
prevented its being done. ! Whether it was the reverence
for the Divine name or whether it was due to some other
recension, it is certain that a later tradition obtained ac-
cording to which the four words ub'iV'lV 13*23^1 13^ to us
and to our children for ever, were pointed, or simply the
two words •1j^D<?rl *fib to us and to our children. This is
exhibited in the first recension of the Aboth di Rabbi Nathan,
the Midrash Rabba and in the Massorah. The remark that
the Ay in (V) alone of the particle IV unto, is also pointed is
manifestly an error since the solitary Daleth ("?) which remains
of the third word yields no sense and undoubtedly shows
that it is the remains of the redaction in which all the
four words were dotted. According to the recension in
which the four words are stigmatized, the sense of the

1 Comp. Sanhedrin 13 b; Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen, p. 31.

CHAP. XI. j The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 331

passage is: "The secret and revealed ways of events are
in the hands of the Lord our God to accomplish all
the statements of this Law", or according- to the redaction
which dots the two words: "The secrets and the revealed
things are for ever with the Lord our God to fulfil all
the words of this Law." It is, however, to be remarked
that these later recensions are utterly at variance with
the promise deduced from this verse that the secret
things belong to us and to our children or will be revealed
to us, which these redactors still retain from the older and
classical record in the Siphri.

Though the Talmud and the Midrashim do not discuss
the four passages which have the extraordinary points in
the Prophets and only refer to the one instance in the
Hagiographa, viz. Ps. XXVII 13, the St. Petersburg Codex
of A. D. 916 which is the oldest dated MSS., gives the
list of the fifteen instances no fewer than three times, l and
all the other MSS. which I have collated coincide with this
ancient recension. In discussing, therefore, the remaining five
passages I shall follow the Massoretic Rubric and continue
the numeration.

(11) 2 Sam. XIX 20. — In the supplication of Shimei
to the king recorded in this verse, the suppliant as the
text now stands, addresses the monarch in the third person
let him not impute ("2t$TP"^K), then suddenly passes over to
the second person and do not thou remember OlSttT^JO), and
then again as suddenly reverts to the third person when
he went out (N3fJ"1^X). The dots on this word, therefore,
indicate that it is to be cancelled and that D8W thou

T T T

wentest out, the second person is to be substituted in
accordance with another recension and in harmony with
T3tfl thou remember, which immediately precedes it. '

] Comp. the Massorah in this Codex on Isa. XLIV 9; Ezek. XLI 20 ;
XLVI 22; and my edition of the Massorah, letter 3, § 521, Vol. If, p. 296.

332 Introduction. [CrJAP. XI.

(12) Isa. XLIV 9. Here ftfaft is dotted and is to be
"cancelled since it is simply dittography of DH with which the

preceding word DHHP1 and their witnesses ends. Hence also
its absence in the Syriac. Accordingly the passage ought
to be rendered:

As for their witnesses they [= the idols] see them not nor
know them.

That there was another recension of the text in which
more words were stigmatized and elided is evident from
the Septuagint where the whole of this sentence DiTHPl
tyy^bSI WV"^2 n&H is omitted. As the passage is so mani-
festly defective we may adopt the small alteration sug-
gested by Dr. Blau; viz. to insert the single letter Beth
(3) in the word DHHJ?1 and their witnesses, and we thus
obtain DiT""pp1 and their wor shippers. This yields the ap-
propriate sense:

They that fashion a graven image are all of them vanity
Their delectable things shall not profit
As for their worshippers they see them not nor know
That they [i. e. the worshippers] may be ashamed.

(13) Ezek. XLI 20 where ^DViii the temple at the end
of the verse is stigmatized, we have another instance of ditto-
graphy. The Scribe simply wrote it twice, once at the end
of this verse and once at the beginning of the next verse.
After its elision the last word of this verse (Tpl) is to
be construed with the first word of the next verse (byfiti)
and the passage is to be rendered:

And as for the wall of the temple, the door posts were squared;
and as for the face of the Sanctuary &c.

This is the alternative rendering given in the margin
of the Revised Version.

(14) Ezek. XL VI 22. — It is now admitted by the best
textual critics that the hybrid expression filP^piitt at the

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 333

end of this verse which is rendered in the Authorised
Version corners (margin cornered) and in the Revised
Version in the corners, but which is here stigmatized by
the Massorites, is spurious and hence is to be elided. Its
absence from the ancient recension is also attested by the
Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate. Accordingly the
passage is simply to be translated:

these four were of the same measure.

(15) Ps. XXVII 13. — In the Talmud (Berachoth 4a)
where the points on X^ are discussed, the following
statement is made in the name of R. Jose who flourished
in the second century:

It is propounded in the name of R. Jose X7l? has dots to indicate
that David spoke before the Holy One, blessed be He, Lord of the universe.
I believe in Thee that Thou wilt richly reward the righteous in the world to
come, but I do not know whether I shall have my portion among them
or not.1

From the words, therefore, but / do not know, or /
do not believe, it is evident that he took the dots to cancel
the first part of this expression and that he read it
TUftXn K^ / do not believe. In other recensions, however,
the word was entirely elided as is attested by some MSS.,
the Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate. Accordingly
the passage ought to be translated:

I believe that I shall see

The goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.

The italic words / had fainted, both in the Authorised
Version and in the Revised Version are an exegetical gloss.
The words ilBO^OI TfrVVfrft or tfS^ T'l p ^n nOO^OI nbVVbft
nttB^B X^X TID3 which are found in some Massoretic Rubrics

man m-p* ^sb yn n&x x^b by Tips na1? w -ani rrwa torn ■
IHV 'ra bzx wnb Trwb B"p*Ha6 aie n:u? obtw: nrttw -ja "an ntsmo aSw bw

Mb dni Birra pbn -b «r a*

334 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

are a later addition. They do npt occur in the oldest re-
cension of this Rubric which is contained in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 916, nor in the best MSS.

These instances, however, must not be regarded as
exhausting the List of spurious words. That there were
many more expressions which were thus stigmatized, we
incidentally learn from the differences which obtained be-
tween the Western and the Eastern Schools of textual
critics. Thus we are told in Codex Harley 5710 — 11 British
Museum, that whilst the Westerns have the Kal pNttfl to
hinder, to dissuade, in the text (= ITD) in Numb. XXXII 7
and the Hiphil pN^fi in the margin (= Keri), the Easterns
have pX^ri with the Massoretic note on it that the first
Vav is dotted.1 Again on Job XXXIX 15 the Massorah
Parva in the Cambridge MS. Add. 465 remarks that the
Easterns have dots on the Cheth (n) and Yod (*) in fi-TP
mid the beasts of.2 How many more such dotted words may
still be found when other MSS. come to light, it is at
present impossible to say. The important part of this record
is the admission by the Sopherim themselves that the dots
on the letters and words mark them as spurious, and that
this admission is corroborated by the ancient Versions
where some of the stigmatized expressions in question are
actually not represented.

VI. The suspended Letters. — The abnormal appearance
of the pendent letters in certain words of the text exhibits
another expedient to which the Scribes resorted to record
the variations which obtained in the different Schools. Both
the Talmud and the Massorah specify four passages in
each of which a word has a suspended letter/5 They are
as follows:

o'rsn '&np n by Tips pnwi -Km-tab ,'p pmn to jiKisn -an-ira1?

nri rfn bv mps m

3 Comp. The Massorah, letter X, § 230, Vol. I, p. 37

nri trn bv mp3 'mibb rrrn 2

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah ; its Rise and Development. 335

(i) Judg". XVIII 30. — The history of the suspended
Nun (j) in the passage before us is both important and
instructive inasmuch as it throws light upon one of the
principles by which the Sopherim were guided in the
redaction of the Hebrew text. We are told that a wan-
dering young Levite who is afterwards incidentally de-
scribed as Jonathan the grandson of Moses (Judg. XVII 7
with XXIII 30), became the priest of an idolatrous worship
at a salary of ten shekels or twenty-five shillings a year in
the house of Micah (XVII 8—13). Five spies of the tribe
of Dan are sent to spy out the land for their tribe, and
when they enter the house of Micah they recognise Jonathan.
After saluting him they craftily entice him to enter into
conversation with the chiefs of their army at the entrance
of the court (XVIII 1 — 16). Whilst Jonathan is thus busily
engaged in talking, these spies clandestinely enter the upper
chamber or chapel and steal the ephod, the teraphim and
the images both. graven and molten (17 — 18). Whereupon
Jonathan not only sanctions the sacrilegious theft, but
accompanies the Danite raiders. The Danites who thus
become possessed of the stolen essentials of worship as
well as of the officiating priest, establish a regular service
and appoint the said "Jonathan the son of Gershom, the
son of Moses" and his descendants to the priestly functions
in the tribe of Dan (19 — 31).

That this wandering Levite, this young Jonathan was
the actual grandson and not a later descendent of Moses
is evident from XX 28 where his contemporary Phineas
is admittedly the grandson of Aaron. The two second
cousins, therefore, lived about the same time. The fact,
however, that the grandson of the great lawgiver should
be the first priest of idolatry was considered both de-
grading to the memory of Moses and humiliating to the
national susceptibilities. Hence in accordance with one of

336 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

their canons to avoid all cacophony the redactors of the
text suspended the letter Nun (j) over the name Moses
(nttfS), thus making- it Manasseh. This is admitted by
the most distinguished Jewish interpreters. Thus Rashi
(1040 — 1 105 A. D.) states: "Because of the honour of Moses
was the Nun written so as to alter the name. The Nun,
however, is suspended to tell thee that it is not Manasseh,
but Moses." ] This was all the more easily effected since
we are told that names were not unfrequently transferred
from one individual to another, not because they indicate
natural consanguinity or identity of person, but metaphori-
cally to denote similarity of character. Jonathan was called
the grandson of Manasseh because he did the deeds of
Manasseh the idolatrous king (2 King XXI) and thus be-
longed to the family of Manasseh. In illustration of this
principle the Talmud adduces the following passages:

'He shall lay the foundation thereof in his first-born and in his youngest
son shall he set up the gates thereof [Josh VI 26]; so also it is said: 'In
his days [i. e. Ahabs] did Hiel. of the house of Eli, build Jericho' (1 Kings
XVI 34]. Was not Hiel of the house of Joshaphat and was not Jericho in
the territory of Benjamin? Why then is it put on Ahab? It is to indicate
that sin is put upon the sinner. Similarly it is said 'and Jonathan, the son
of Gershom, the son of Manasseh' [Judg. XVIII 30]. Was he then the sou
of Manasseh and was he not the son of Moses? And why then is this matter
put on Manasseh? It is to indicate that sin is put upon the sinner2 (Toscphta
Sanhedrin XIV 7, 8, p. 437, ed. Zuckermandel, Trier 1882).

For this reason the name of Manasseh has actually
been inserted into the text by one School of redactors
without mentioning the suspended Nun, though in their

'ain nnnn rorosi own nx nwn pa ana ntra bv vnaa 'DBa ,ntwa p 1

♦mpa xnx ntraa m x^tr

rra bwn naa ra^a naix xi.n pi rrnbi aw iTyarai nana", maaaa 2

xnx axnxa nnrra nani pa^aa nra utti aaenrra barn vbm inn" nx ^xn

»f?m xin nrcaa p ry\ ntwa p atma p jnainn ia xrra ,ym nam pnintr nana

♦a^na nam p^intr nana xnx niwaa nan nnn^ nani xin nrca p

CHAP. XI. j The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 337

explanations they emphatically declare that it stands for
Moses/ whilst another School have Moses with the sus-
pended Nun over it.2 It will thus be seen that whethcr
they mention the suspended Nun or not, all the ancient
authorities agree that Manasseh (7V&y&) stands here for
Moses (TWfo) and that it is so written to spare the repu-
tation of the great lawgiver. This also accounts for the
exclusion of Jonathan's name from the family register of
Moses given in i Chron. XXIII 15, 16 and XXVI 24.
Indeed the Chaldee paraphrase asserts that Shebuel (t\x:W);
which in the passages in question takes the place of
Jonathan, is the name given to Jonathan after his con-
version from idolatry and returning to the true God
(^N3tP = ^N Dtp' he returned to the true God). Hence "it is
Shebuel that is Jonathan the son of Gershom the son of
Moses returned to the fear of the Lord".3 The Septuagint,
the Chaldee and the Authorised Version represent the
redaction which has \Wjft Manasseh in the text, whilst the
Vulgate and the Revised Version follow the School which
read TWft Moses. The early editions are divided. The first
edition of the Prophets, Soncino 1485 — 86; the editio princeps
of the entire Bible, Soncino 1488; the third edition of the
Bible, Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot, and
the Venice quarto 1521 have \W$1 without the suspended
Nun, whilst the second edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93;
the Earlier Prophets, Pesaro 151 1; the Rabbinic Bible by
Felix Pratensis 1 5 1 7 ; and the first edition of the Bible

1 Comp. Baba Bathra 109 b\ Aboth di Rabbi Nathan first recension
XXXIV, fol. 50 a, ed. Schechter. London 1887; Mechiltha, Pericope TW
XVIII 1, fol. 57 b, ed. Friedmann, Vienna 1870.

2 Jerusalem Berachoth IX, 2; Jems. Sanhedrin XI, 7; Midrasli Rabba
on the Song of Songs II, 5, Wilna 1878; Aboth di Rabbi Nathan second
recension XXXVII, fol. 49 b, ed. Schechter.

♦'H w&trib an HBte *>a atehs *q ,;-:•'• kih bwafr 3

338 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25 have
nttttO with the suspended Nun.

(2) Ps. LXXX 14. — The almost unanimous explanation
of this passage by the ancient authorities as recorded in
the Talmud and in the Midrashim supply us with the clue
to the condition of the primitive text. In its briefest form
the explanation is given in the Midrash Rabba on Levit. XI
and is as follows:

The Ay in is suspended in IX^fc to indicate that when Israel is in-
nocent it will only be assailed by the swine of the River, but when it is
guilty it will be destroyed by the boar from the forest. The river animal
which comes out of the River is weak, whilst the animal which comes from
the forest is strong.1

In a more expanded form the same explanation is
given in the Midrash on the Psalms and on the Song of
Songs III 14 as well as in the Aboth di Rabbi Nathan.
In the latter the explanation is as follows:

The textual reading (STO) is the swine from the River and [the Keri
is] the swine from the forest. When Israel does not act in accordance with
the will of God, the nations, like the swine of the forest, will be upon them.
Just as the boar of the forest kills man and tears animals and plagues the
children of man, so all the time that Israel does not act in harmony with
the will of God, the nations will kill them, damage them and hurt them.
But all the time that the Israelites do the will of God, the nations will not
domineer over them no more than the swine of the River. Just as the swine of
the River does not kill men nor destroy animals, so all the time that Israel
performs His will, no nations nor tongue will kill them, damage them or hurt,
them. For this reason the textual reading is the swine from the River.2

*nn nrn p i*6 axi Turn p Drrar dx mbn py nr& -vpn ™&Di:r *
xvpscto fccn trb xunin p xpbn k^iso kti mm jia xpbo na xnrrt Comp.

Midrash Rabba Peniope T&IP Parasha XIII, fol. 19 a, ed. Wilna 1878.

bmw pxp i&nrc ?vp] ir» T-m naiaD-D"1 ,a»ro *mHa tin na&D'tr 2
mn nro wr na nra Tins n^bv main a^irn maix aipa bw mn ptsnr
oipa bw TDi2in D^ir bmw pxtr pi bz "p anx N:a npb&i nvnan nx pnai rntrea
^tr irsn a*w bmww jat bai rjmx pp^ai ana pp"Ttti ana prvn a"?iy,n riiei*
nn wk nix* ntr Tin no mx* ntr nnna pa rnrcia anirn n*aix p* aipa

CHAP. XI. J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 339

This leaves it beyond the shadow of a doubt that the
twofold reading in question is due to the primitive ortho-
graphy in which, as we have already seen, both the silent
or feeble letters Aleph (N) and Ay in (V) were frequently
not expressed l The word in question was originally written
TO which one School of textual redactors read Tft = *1K?9
from the River, supplying Aleph and the other School read
it TO = IV* ft from the forest, supplying Ayin. An instance
of T standing for 1V\ in Phoenician is given by Schroder
from the Tucca Inscription.2 This reading n.N'0 from the
River, was the more popular one in Palestine as is evident
from other parts of the Talmud, where Ps. LXXX 14 is
adduced to prove that nop fi-TT the wild beast of the reeds
(Ps. LXVIII 31) is identical with the *)Wp T?n the swine
of the River.'6 The swine of the River like the beast of
the reeds is most probably the hippopotamus and is here
used as the symbol of Egypt or the empire of the Nile-
valley. The comparative harmlessness which these Hagadic
interpretations ascribe to this animal is due to the fact
that under the Ptolomaic dynasties the Jews enjoyed many
privileges, and many of them occupied positions of high
rank. It was under the Roman occupation of Palestine
and the Roman oppression of the Jews that the alterna-
tive reading IV^ft T?fJ swine of the forest, became more
popular. The Boar was the military sign of the Roman

inn p-m prcbi n&ix p* msn ptny bmvpw \ni bz -p mnn1? pia win m»a:
mtria Tin nnas npb fmx fpbto xb: pia pp'tiai Comp. Rabboth di Rabbi

Nathan first recension, cap. XXXIV, fol. 50 b, ed. Schechter, London 1887.

1 Vide supra pp. 138—144.

- Comp. Die Phonizische Sprachc by Dr. Paul Schroder, p. 19,
Halle 1869.

3 "iai Tin n:ttD-c yroi D*jpn pa n-nrc .Tn tuh rop n"n nya Pesachim

118 b] Comp. Graetz, Monatsschrift filr Geschichte und Wissenschaft tics

Judenthums. Vol. XXIII, p. 389, Breslau 1874.

\\ •

340 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

legions and though Marius afterwards introduced the
Eagle, the Boar still continued as the sign in some legions
and especially of the army which was quartered in Palestine.
The Romans then became as repulsive to the Jews as the
swine and the -\yV5 Ttfl the Boar, the symbol of Rome
not only became the more acceptable reading, but was
regarded as identical with the iron yoke of Roman tyranny.
Hence the Septuagint, the Chaldee and the Vulgate
read the boar out of the wood. As to its treatment in the
early editions, the editio princeps of the Hagiographa,
Naples i486 — 87; the editio princeps of the entire Bible,
Soncino 1488; the second edition of the Bible, Naples
1 49 1 — 93; the third edition of the Bible, Brescia 1494; the
Complutensian Polyglot and the three quarto Bomberg
editions 151 8, 152 1, 1525 have simply *W*Q and take no
notice of the suspended letter Ayin. The Salonica edition
of the Hagiographa 15 15, as far as I can trace it, is the
first which exhibits the suspended letter. It is also given
in the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah
by Jacob b. Chayim Venice 1524 — 25. It is remarkable that
Felix Pratensis in his Rabbinic Bible 151 7 makes the
Ayin a majuscular letter. This is probably due to the fact
that some ancient authorities regarded it as the middle
letter of the Psalter.1

(3 and 4) Job XXXVIII 13, 15. — In these two verses
the expression D^PEh wicked, occurs and in both instances
the letter Ayin (V) is suspended. Here too the explanation
given by the ancient authorities indicates the state of the
text. The remark on this passage is as follows:

Why is the Ayin suspended in the word DTl£H wicked} To indicate
that if one has become chief upon earth, he will be poor in heaven In such
case the Ayin should not have been written at all? R. Jochanan said it was

1 Comp. Kiddnshim 30^.

CHAP. XI. J The Massorah ; its Rise and Development. .'341

written so as not to offend the dignity of David and R. Eleasar said not
to offend the dignity of Nehemiah son of Hachaliah * [Sanhedrin 10, 3 Z?).

Whatever may be our opinion as to the value of
this homiletic interpretation of the verse before us,
there can be no doubt that according- to the emphatic
statement of these ancient authorities the Ayin (V) ori-
ginally formed no constituent part of the word in
question and that it was afterwards suspended over the
word (D'EH) out of respect for the two distinguished per-
sonages in the Jewish commonwealth. The passages in
question, therefore, afford another illustration of the fact
that in the primitive orthography the feeble letters were
frequently not expressed. Hence some Schools read it
W*p1 or D'EftO poor, or chiefs, whilst in other Schools it
was read D?EH = &VV*\ wicked. The latter is the reading ex-
hibited in all the ancient Versions. As far as I can trace it,
Jacob b. Chayim is the first who in the first edition of the
Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah, Venice 1524 — 25, exhibits
the suspended Ayin in both verses. The editio princeps of
the Hagiographa, Naples 1486-87; the first, second, third
and fourth editions of the entire Bible (Soncino 1488;
Naples 1491—93; Brescia 1494; Pesaro 151 1— 17), the
Salonica edition of the Hagiographa 1515, the Compluten-
sian Polyglot, the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible, by
Felix Pratensis 15 17 and all the three Venice quartos
(15 18, 1 52 1, 1525) have the ordinary expressions D^ttfl and
D'WEHtt without noticing in any way that according to the
MSS. and the Massorah the Ayin is suspended in both
these words.

VII. The Inverted Nuns. — Other remarkable pheno-
mena exhibited in the Massoretic text are the Inverted

DTtsn bv p'T na "sua nntwi na*i ynn b-iik trtma wn arai na >

pnv n bb*z nsroa *6i -nbra^a en rroa naaba an d-ix nrcyatp pra rr6n

♦rrban p rvaro bv maa aura nax -im m bw mas ":sa tbk in -itrbic 'ii

342 Introduction. [CRA1\

Nuns (i) which the student will find in no fewer than nine
passages { and of which he obtains no solution in the
margin except the bewildering remark against it An in-
verted Nun (rDlBn pJ) or A separated Nun (mPDB pa). Yet
these inverted letters or their equivalents are also among
the earliest signs by which the Sopherim designed to indicate
the result of their textual criticism. They are simply
intended to take the place of our modern brackets to
mark that the passages thus bracketed are transposed.

That this is their original design is attested by the
earliest authorities. Thus the Siphra on Numb. X 35 em-
phatically declares that "these two verses are marked at
the beginning and at the end to show that this is not their
proper place". Though R. Jehudah the redactor of the
Mishna in accordance with the later feelings would not
admit that there is any dislocation in the sacred text and
hence resorted to the fanciful explanation that the marks
in question are designed to show that Numb. X 35, 36
forms a separate book and that the Mosaic Law does not
consist of Five, but of Seven Books, yet his father R. Simon
b. Gamaliel still maintained the ancient view of dislocation
and that the signs denote transposition.2 In the Talmud
{Sabbath 115b — 11 6a) where the same ancient view is
recorded as the teaching of the Rabbis that the signs
indicate dislocation, and where the later opinion of
R. Jehudah is also given, the verse "Wisdom hath builded
her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars" in Prov.

1 Comp. Numb. X 35, 36; Ps. CVII 23, 24, 25, 26,- 27, 28, 40, and
see The Massorah, letter 2, § 15, Vol. II, p. 259.

w ifcipa rn m vbw 'sua nta&b&i 'bytbh vbv tips pan noaa \ti 2

ntsnss nrniK xa m Witwi pntiw nso in&a j*oia l&stya 120 Kinrc *:zb n&iK

*sn ep na KpD"s a-i ^m nao napa m rvn

CHAP. XI. J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 343

IX i is adduced l to show that the seven pillars denote
the Seven Books of the Law which are obtained by taking-
Numb. X 35, 36 as constituting a separate book. For this
makes the book Numbers into three books, viz.: (1) Numb.
1 1— X 34; (2) Numb. X 35,36; and (3) Numb. XI 1— XXXVI 13.
Nothing, however, can be more emphatic than the decla-
ration of R. Simon b. Gamaliel who in accordance with
the ancient view adds in the passage before us that "in
future this Section, viz. Numb. X 35, 36, will be removed
from here and be written in its proper place".2 Its proper
place, according to a later Talmudist, is in the description
of the journeys and encampment of the tribes. The two
verses belong to the journey of the Levites with the
tabernacle and ought to follow immediately after Numb.
II 17.3 That the Inverted Nuns indicate here a dislocation
of the text is also attested by the Septuagint. In the
recension from which this Version was made, verses 35, 36
preceded verse 34, so that the order of the verses in
question is Numb. X 35, 36, 34 and this seems to be the
proper place for the two verses.

The other seven Inverted Nuns are confined to Ps. CVII.
They bracket verses 2$ — 28 and verse 39. But though the
best MSS. and the Massorah distinctly mark the verses
in question with the sign of dislocation, neither the Tal-
mudic authorities nor the ancient Versions give us any
indication as to where the proper place is for the bracketed

mwa nnwp,n rh n^y u nana nrco nam pan pasa Tin pan i:n >
*3B& vbx n: mn atpn p xn naix -an ,naipa m pm& n&in ntsabai rteraba
jnrr n"x jam in nKiatr 'n naan s\n xnm pc&a M$tV '■aaa Kin awn naarc
•% ip nap :nmn nae nrarc ins npaw n*mar naacn
nap py t.naipaa ansni jk:d£ npirnrc it ntrns nTny nai* ra «m 2

0 ep nn pns x Knaia jn: "ann main tap ep

3 Comp. Sopherim VI, i ; Geiger, JUdische Zeitschrift fur Wissensckaft
and Lebcn, Vol. Ill, p. 80-82, Breslau 1864—65.

344 Introduction. [CHAP. XL

sections. The Talmud which notices the fact that this
Psalm has the signs, simply explains it homiletically. It
says that "verse 23 &c. is furnished with signs like the
particles of exception but and only in the Bible to indicate
that the prayer of those who are in danger of shipwreck
is only heard before the event is decreed by God, but is
not heard after it has been decreed".1 This is in accordance
with the sentiments of the later Rabbins who, as we
have often seen, manifested the greatest anxiety to obli-
terate altogether, or to diminish as much as possible any
indication that there are spurious words or letters in the
text or that any of the sections are dislocated. Hence they
explained away allegorically all the critical signs of the
ancient redactors of the text.

But though it is now difficult to say to what part of
the Psalm the magnificent description of the sea-voyage
belongs, it is comparatively easy to rearrange the
passage in which the dislocation is indicated towards the
end of the Psalm. As the text now stands the transition
from verse 38 to 39 is inexplicable. The verses exhibit
no logical sequence and verse 39 is without a subject. If,
however, we avail ourselves of the critical indication given
us by the ancient redactors that the verse before us
is dislocated and put verse 40 before verse 39 we not
only obtain a logical order, but have the missing subject
for verse 39. We have thus

Verse 40: He poureth contempt upon princes,

And causeth them to wander in the pathless waste.

„ 39: And they are diminished and bowed down
Through oppression trouble snd sorrow;

„ 41: But he setteth the needy secure from affliction,

And maketh like a flock the families [of the afflicted].

iprae *jb ^isb rrnrfiv ppi p5«a nr:>re pb rwv "ui nrwa crn "inr i

CHAP. XI. j The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 345

It must, however, not be supposed that the nine
passages tabulated in the Massoretic Rubric as bracketed
exhaust all the instances comprised in this category of
critical remarks. We incidentally know from the Massorah
Parva on Gen. XI 32 in the editio princeps of the Rab-
binic Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim
Venice 1524 — 25 that there is also an Inverted Nun at the
end of the chapters in question. This indicates that the
death of Terah which is recorded in the last verse does
not chronologically come before the Lord's command to
Abraham to leave Haran with which chapter twelve begins
and that it must have taken place after the departure of
the patriarch. The verse in question must, therefore, be
transposed.1

The treatment which these Inverted Nuns has received
on the part of some of the later Massorites affords another
striking illustration of the anxiety to obliterate all the
early traces of critical signs as to the condition of the
text. Instead of placing these brackets at the beginning
and at the end of the verses which they are designed to
indicate as dislocated, in accordance with nearly all the
best Codices, some MSS. exhibit the inverted Nun in a
word in the text itself which contains this letter in each
of the nine passages. This curious device I have given in
the Massorah.2

VIII. The Removal of Indelicate Expressions, Anthropo-
morphisms &c. from the Text. — Hitherto we have traced the
phenomenal signs furnished in the text by the Sopherim
themselves as indications of various readings which obtained
in the Codices of the different Schools. These abnormal

1 Comp. Geiger, Jiidische Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaft und Lcben,
Vol. 1, p. 120, Breslau 1862.

2 Comp. The Massorah letter 3, § 15 a, Vol. II, p. 259.

346 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

appearances of the text though plain enough to decipher
with the clue which the ancient records supply us, have
yet evoked a difference of opinion on the part of some
modern critics because later Talmudists allegorised or
homiletically explained what was primarily intended as
textual criticism. No such difference of opinion, however,
can possibly be entertained about the statement made by
the redactors of the text with regard to the principles
by which they were guided in the work of redaction.
The classical passage which sets forth these principles
is as follows:

In every passage where the text has an indelicate expression a euphemism
is to be substituted for it. as for instance for .-OtW ravish, violate, outrage
[Deut. XXVIII 30; Isa. XIII 16; Jerem. Ill 2; Zech. XIV 2] n:2DVT to
lie with, is to be substituted; for U"b^V posteriors [Deut. XXVIII 27;
1 Sam. V 6; VI 4] read d'Hlfld emerods; for D^THH dung, excrements or
d^V "Hn doves' dung [?. Kings VI 25] read d^Vd^ decayed leaves; for
D.Tmn or d,Tnn excrement [2 Kings XVIII 27; Isa. XXXVI 12] substitute
HK12£ deposit; for DHTtP urine [2 Kings XVIII 27; Isa. XXXVI 12] read
dirbjH ''dd water of the feet; for niXind^ middens, privies [2 Kings X 27]
substitute HlKSt'd^ sewers, retreats.1 Comp. Megilla 25 b; Jerusalem MegillalV.

In accordance with this rule not only does the
Massorah duly register these stigmatized expressions,2 but
all the MSS. of the Bible with the Massorah and every
edition of the Massoretic text give in every instance the
authoritative substitute as the official reading in the margin
and furnish the consonants of the text itself with the
vowel-signs which belong to the marginal reading. These,
however, are simply typical examples and we shall see in
the sequel that this principle was applied by the authori-

mbxp p;d ndu6 jnix pp wib rmro pavon riimpan bd pd-i ian »
dmrc "aa nx mntt6i nrmin nx bid*6 d^rm a^vnn asnndd d^bw njddur
♦its nbjd t«ieMbb mx-ind1? nrvbii ^d nx ninrcbi dnxn *?idxb

2 Comp. The Massorah, letter V, § 722, Vol. II, 416; letter IP, § 138,
Vol. II, p. 607.

CHAI'. XI. | The Massorah ; its Rise and Development. 317

tative redactors of the Sacred Scriptures far more ex-
tensively to remove indelicate expressions and antropo-
morphisms.

IX. The Emendations of the Sopherim. — The editorial
principle thus laid down that indelicate expressions and
anthropomorphisms are to be removed is also illustrated
in the examples which the Sopherim have given of the
passages altered in harmony with this canon. In the best
MSS. there are remarks in the margin against certain
readings calling attention to the fact that they exhibit
"an emendation of the Sopherim". Thus in the St. Petersburg
Codex of A. D. 916 which is the oldest dated MS. known
at present, the Massorah Parva notices it in four different
places. On Ezek. VIII 17 it states that it is "one of the
eighteen emendations of the Sopherim".1 On Zech. II 12
the remark is somewhat different in form, but the same
in purport and is as follows: "one of the eighteen emenda-
tions of the Sopherim, the sages, their memory is for
good and for a blessing";2 whilst on Mai. I 13 and III 8
the Massoretic remark is the same as in the first instance.
In two of these four passages the Massorah Magna gives
the complete List of these eighteen alterations, viz.
Ezek. VIII 17 and Zech. II 12. But though the Massoretic
List gives the passages as emended, it does not state
what the original text was which the Sopherim altered.
Apart from the Massorah we possess no fewer than four
separate and independent records which chronicle this
important fact, and which illustrate it by adducing the
passages wherein the alterations have been made. The
variations in the number of the illustrations and the
difference in the order in which the instances are adduced

♦DnsiD |pTi rr p '
♦re-o^i nsmb 'rot o-aan 'bid ppvi rr j& 2

348 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

show that the records in question are independent of each
other and that they are derived from different sources.

The oldest record of these alterations is given in the
Mechiltha on Exod. XV 7 and is as follows:

(1) Zech. II 12 (A. V. v. 8): "For he that toucheth you toucheth the
apple of his eye," but the text is altered. So also

(2) Mai. I 13: '"Ye said also, Bebold what a weariness is it! and ye
have snuffed at it." but the text is altered. So also

(3) I Sam. Ill 13: "For the iniquity which he knoweth, because his
sons made themselves accursed." but the text is altered. So also

(4) Job. VII 20: "Why hast thou set me as a mark against thee so
that I am a burden to myself"? the text is altered. So also

(5) Habak. I 10: "Art thou not from everlasting O Lord my God,
mine Holy One? we shall not die." the text is altered. So also

(6) Jerem. II II: 'Hath a nation changed their gods which yet are no
gods? but my people have changed their glory." the text is altered. So also

(7) Ps. CVI 20: 'Thus they have changed their glory into the similitude
of an ox." the text is altered.

(8) Numb. XI 15: "And Let me not see my wretchedness" the text
is altered. So also

(9) 2 Sam. XX 1 : "We have no portion in David .... every man to
his tents O Israel"? the text is altered.

(10) Ezek. VIII 17: And lo. they put the branch to their nose."
the text is altered.

(11) Numb. XII 12: 'When he cometh out of his mother's womb"
should be our mother's, the text is altered.1 Mechiltha 39^7, ed. Friedmann,
Vienna 1870.

x^x naix wk pr nnnn naix rmrp *sn w nnnn j?ma ana w»m l
rontennaxi m xarra tmnan row xbx nbra *tbo bia^aa a^na iry nnnn
Q'bbpb *s pt nwx ppa in Kara tainan row vbx mix ana&ni nx^na
*& rrcixi -jb vmb ^anas? na^> in nawa imron row xbx 'iai anb
wa niaa *6i b\-6k '* anpa "aba nnx *6n in wens :mnan ro'B xirab
nra mna tw "am a^x xb nam n^x *u -vara in xaxra :ainan
nahn wtb nxnx bxi :aman na^a nra maana a-naa nx rim in xatra :mnan
nam :aman na^a btnw vhnxb vrx t'iai] inn pbn lab px in Kama tmnan
naib ib rrn laax anna lax ania mxa:a :mnan wa asax hx miain wnbw
nbya *s^a bia^aa to nnnn yaiaa in won naix nnx jxa *]x tnman na"a
.a1? &p xnmaa nsa : avian na*au> x^x nana mnan

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 349

" In the Siphre (fol. 22 b; ed. Friedmann, Vienna 1864),
where the same fact is recorded, only seven of the
instances are adduced, since Nos. 2, 3, 7 and 9 which
are given in the Mechiltha List are here omitted. For
completeness sake I subjoin the text of the Siphri in the
note.1 It is also important to notice that the order in which
the passages are enumerated differs in the two documents.
The third record is contained in the Yalkut Shimeoni
on Exod. XV 7, § 247, p. 15 1} ed. Warsaw 1876. Though
the List here given contains ten passages and might thus
be almost considered identical with that given in the first
record, a close examination of it will show its independence.2

It is the fourth record, given in the Midrash Tanchuma
also on Exod. XV 7 (p. 83 a, ed. Wilna 1833) which is of
the utmost importance in the discussion of the alterations
of the Sopherim. The List in this document not only
contains six more instances, viz. Gen. XVIII 22; 2 Sam.
XVI 12; Hos. 10 7; Job. XXXII 3; Lament. Il\ 20;

aipa bw to naaa xbx naxs vh py naa to naaa y33a ana paian ba »
*bv n\nxi ^b vizftb "ana?? n&S ia icrra trnnan row *6x nnra •'aba bmxs
taman r\y?v i6m aax b* imam nx wnbw n3.m ia nam j 'man nratr *6k x»&&
in Kara 1 avian nratr xnx max xni trip nnx 'n anpa nnx xnn ia Kara
nx naa DKi ia xara : avian raw xnx nw naix mtr rvaana aniaa nx rwi
jainan nratp xnx Tina nmK nxi n,TOa jn TiKata ax am xa *aann n niriy
♦aaa pp naa tainan nratr xnx intra ^am naxn lax anna inxara nrcx ia Kara
xnx naix irx pr naaa naix mirr n to naaa paia aaa won "a 2
naix nnx ia Kara : avian .nsaty xnx nana ainan nnra ^aba nia^aa to naaa
pra naix nnx ia Kara : ainan naaa? xnx mix ana am nxnna run annaxi
xin nnx xnn naix nnx ia xara tainan naatr xnx an1? annpa ^a i?t nwx
'i3i annx na wn ia Kara tainan roarc xnx mas xn trip nnx 'n anpa
px ia xara tainan naarc xnx '131 amaa nx iwi ia xara t ainan naarc xnx
xnx 'i3i lax anna inxata nirx ia Kara tainan naat? xnx 'i3i nina pnn i3n
:aman mm xnx aax nx nmam nx annitr nam ia sacra tainan naatr
*p nbrca nrcna x pbn TOaw aipn' : 'iai aaa janan (na) '•a naix nnx jxa »]«

,ian § ,ir

350 Introduction. [CHAP.

2 Chron. X i6; but gives the original text in eleven out
of the seventeen passages which it adduces and emphati-
cally declares that the primitive readings were altered by
the Members of the Great Synagogue or the Spiritual
authorities who fixed the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures.1
For the completion of the materials relating to this
important branch of textual criticism and before discussing
the merits of these alterations we have yet to mention
the fact that the Mass or ah itself gives us a List of these
alterations of the Sopherim with the original reading in
every passage. The List is preserved in the following
three of the Yemen MSS. in the British Museum; Orient. 1379,
fol. 268 &; Orient. 2349; fol. loSa; and Orient. 2365, fol. 138&.
In all the three MSS. the Massorah in question is given
on Numb. XII 2. In Orient. 1397 and Orient. 2349 these
alterations are not only ascribed to the Sopherim, but it
is declared that according to the opinion of some Schools
they were made by Ezra himself. As I have printed this

manw xbx naib ib iw ^3? TO mm raia am wwi rs naix xm pi 1
nnan ^ax amsia jipTi ximr mron inaai jma ^em to»ap naim nman
m xa*rn tainan maaip xbx ^riix anaem nxnna nan annaxi in xama tnVran
nab in xajra taina.n lnaarc xnx m nro xni im anb a^mpa *a rm ^x pyn
nnpa ,nnx xbn in xajra :nma.n inaatr xbx xtrab t?^P irniti nb raaab hanatr
xb nam a\nbx ^ mam in xa*ra : mnnn inaatr xbx fi^ xn ^np \nbx 'n
H133 nx hw in xaim taina.n inaarc xbx mim xm H133 man wi n\nbx
i.nanw xnx max pbpn H133 in aatra tmnnn inaarc xbx try mix mtr nmnn
nrx nx irtrmi nara ixa:a xb mrx br isx mh rrn ntrbwni in xatm :mmn
xa*m :mmn inaair xbx n n:zb naiy lamy nnnnxi in ximn :nmnn maau xbx
rnmn nxnx bxi nmm |n hnxara nx ainn xa wi ^ ntsnr nnx nnn nxi in
mamr xbx to^fete "acn mxn ^BX anna mxarn mrx nan \nn xa bx in xairn
nxn nny bmvr mb.nxb trx ^ pn nbna xm, mnn pbn lab na in nama :mnnn
*bv nitrni main mm !Vrfr*6 a^n mnnm ;vm>6 bantr -|mi mn nmn
ixnpa nnbi tnmnan nnan h#ax inx ampins law xbx 1?y?3 'nnxm^ix nrsa
nman nx wnb'w aam pi nnix ptanim nmnatr nrnix m amnia vhb? amsia
xaman isnna P^P nnnnyaia annraian ^ jxa ^xi IDBK bx iapn am >BN bx

j"atpn nap xamii tasa ^n nmo ntrna

CHAP. XT.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 351

List in the Massorah1 it is unnecessary to reproduce it
here. I must also mention that a List of these Alterations
with the original readings has been preserved in Orient. 1425
which contains the MS. of the Hebrew Grammar called
Maase Ephod by Prophiat Duran. In the heading (fol. 1 14 £)
the List is described as exhibiting the alterations made
by Ezra and Nehemiah.2 As it gives only fifteen instances
and does not mention any number, it is evident that it
emanates from a source prior to the Massoretic recension
when the number was already fixed. In the excellent
edition of this valuable work published by Friedlander
and Kohn, Vienna 1865, the List is not given probably
because it was not in the MSS. which these learned
editors collated.

It will be seen that in none of the documents in
which these alterations are enumerated is any definite
order followed in the respective instances adduced. The

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter ft, § 206. Vol. II. p. 710

rrann &n?p oneiD ppn 2

sins rm vsb nw """n w vab lair 13-ny arrow

'ins rm -|nms wo nana bw

'ins rrr\ isax anna lax anna

'ins rrn iS t»» orb wbbpb o

'ins rm rnbxb b^k ^k-w rbrwh «pk

'ins rm mas hiss -roan ^an

'ins rm S£K ba bsk bx rman

'ins MTI VP TV* nSIS W13 CHS MW1

'ins rm tiik mix a^na an«i

'ins rm mix ima anssm

'ins rm ybv K^a1? ^y rmm

'ins rm wra w v"1 mrr' "^ix

'ins rm ib?b3 'PB3 'bv nitrni

'ins rm i;ntrs nwa ■•am bsx^i

'ins rm a"at? be? srx nx irtrn

♦dtibid ppn an

352 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

List in each of the records has a sequence of its own.
For the convenience of the student, however, I shall
discuss the passages in the order in which they occur in
the Hebrew Bible.

(i) Gen. XVIII 22. — "But Abraham stood yet before
the Lord." Of the Lists in the four records, the Tanchuma
List is the only one which adduces this passage as
exhibiting an alteration of the Sopherim. It is also given
in both Lists of the oldest Massorah l contained in the
St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916 and in all the three
Massoretic Rubrics in Orient. 1379, Orient. 2349 and
Orient. 2365 in each of which it is emphatically stated
that it ought to be, or that the original reading was "but
the Lord stood yet before Abraham" only that the text was
altered.2 To the same effect, but in somewhat simpler
language is the declaration in the ancient List preserved
in the Maase Ephod that the text was originally and the
Lord still stood before Abraham, but that it was altered
by Ezra and Nehemiah into its present from. With such
an emphatic declaration before us, both in the ancient post-
Biblical records and in the Massorah itself, it seems almost
superfluous to point out that it would be most incomprehen-
sible for the redactors of the text to state that they have
here altered the text and also to give the original reading
when they had in fact done no such thing. The context,
moreover, and the logical continuity of the narrative show
beyond doubt that the primitive text was what the
Sopherim and the Massorah state it to have been. It was
the Lord who came down to see and to tell Abraham
whether the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah had acted
in accordance with the bitter cry which went up to

1 Comp. the St. Petersburg Codex Ezek. VIII 17 and Zech. II 12.

♦rsiron row *6k annsx *&h -i&r lnw mm *i*n irn 2

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 353

heaven; it was the Lord, therefore, who stood before
Abraham; it was to the Lord's immediate presence that
Abraham drew nigh, and it was the Lord who departed
from Abraham when the patriach left off interceding with
Him (Gen. XVIII 21, 22, 33). As the phrase to stand
before another is sometimes used in the Scriptures to
denote a state of inferiority and homage ' it was deemed
derogatory to the Deity to say that the Lord stood before
Abraham. Hence in accordance with the above rule to
remove all indelicate expressions the phrase was altered
by the Sopherim.

(2) Numb. XI 15. — All the four ancient records and
the Massoretic Lists give this passage as exhibiting an
alteration of the Sopherim. The three Yemen MSS. and
the Massorah preserved in the Maase Ephod state the text
originally was "kill me I pray thee out of hand if I have
found favour in thy sight that I may not see ("[DPin) thy
evil", i. e. the evil or punishment wherewith thou wilt visit
Israel. As this might be so construed as to ascribe evil
to the Lord, the Sopherim altered it into "that I may not
see ('niHD) wiy evil" which the Authorised Version and the
Revised Version render "my wretchedness". From the
rendering of the Jerusalem Targum "that I may not see
the evil of thy people" it is evident that in some Schools
the textual reading was y$V flJTU or DrWD.2

(3) Numb. XII 12. — "Let her not, I pray, be as the
dead born child which when it comes out of its mother's
womb, has half its flesh consumed." This we are told by
all the ancient authorities is a correction of the Sopherim
and that the text originally was: "Let her not, I pray, be
as the dead born child, which when proceeding from our

Comp. Gen. XVIII 8; XLI 16; Deut. I 38; X 8; XVIII 7 &c

354 Introduction. [CHAP. XI

mother's (WJBN) womb the half of our flesh (^fW'Z) is con-
sumed." This was regarded as derogatory to the mother
of the great lawgiver by depicting her as having given birth
to a partially decomposed body. The simile was, therefore,
altered from the first person plural into the impersonal.
(4) 1 Sam. Ill 13. — "Because his sons did bring a
curse upon themselves and he restrained them not" or as
the Authorised Version has it "because his sons made
themselves vile" margin "accursed". It is now admitted
that this rendering cannot legitimately be obtained from
the text as it now stands since the Piel b^T) does not
mean to bring a curse upon any one, but to curse and is
never followed by the dative, but the accusative. All the
ancient authorities, however, emphatically declare that this
is not the original reading, and that the text exhibits one
of the alterations of the Sopherim. According to some
authorities, the text originally was ^ D^pft they cursed me,
i. e. God. But though this undoubtedly yields the original
sense and supplies the reason for the alteration, it is
exposed to the same grammatical difficulty as the present
text since b^p is never construed with the dative. There
can, therefore, be no doubt that the Septuagint has
preserved the original reading D^ii^X God, viz. "because
his sons cursed God" (comp. Exod. XXII 27), which is
also exhibited in the margin of the Revised Version and
is now accepted by the best critics. In their effort to
soften the offensive statement that the sons of Eli openly
blasphemed God, and that he did not reprimand them the
Sopherim wrere most anxious to alter the text as little as
possible. They, therefore, restricted themselves to the
simple omission of the two letters Aleph (tf) and Yod (^)
and indeed of only the one letter Aleph since the Yod, as
we have seen, was frequently absent in the primitive
orthography thus converting DH^X God into Utlb them.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 355

(5) 2 Sam. XVI 12. — Before considering the alteration
which the Sopherim introduced into this passage it is
necessary to remark that the text here exhibits three different
recensions. We have in the first place the textual reading
or the Kethiv "the Lord will look (^i3?3) on mine iniquity",
which is interpreted '-'the iniquity" or "wrong done unto
me" and which is adopted in the Revised Version. Then
we have the official Keri "the Lord will look ^TV^) on
mine eye", which is explained to stand for "my tears" and
which is followed in the margin of the Authorised Version.
And then again we have the reading "the Lord will look
(*??P5i) on my affliction' , which is exhibited in the Septuagint,
the Syriac and the Vulgate, and which is followed in the
text of the Authorised Version, and is noticed in the
margin of the Revised Version. It will be seen that in
both the textual reading or Kethiv (*tf??) on mine iniquity,
and the official reading or Keri (UT3) on mine eye, we
have to resort to artificial explanations to obtain a tolerable
sense. In the first instance we are told that "mine iniquity"
stands for the iniquity or wrong done to me and in the
second instance it is stated that "mine eye" stands for
my tears. The ancient authorities, however, emphatically
declare that the passage before us exhibits an alteration
of the Sopherim and that the text originally was "the
Lord will behold (i^J?2) with his eye". In harmony with the
recensional canon that anthropomorphisms are to be
removed, the reading that the Lord will see with his
own eye was altered by the simple process of substiting
the letter Yod (>) for Van (1) at the end of the word
thus converting the suffix third person into the first
person.

(6, 7 and 8) 2 Sam. XX 1. — "Every man to his tents,

O Israel" we are told in the Mechiltha, which contains the

earliest record on this subject, that this is not the original

356 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

reading, but that it exhibits an alteration of the Sopherim.
Originally the text read "every one to his gods, O Israel".
The rebellion against the house of David was regarded
as necessarily involving apostasy from the true God and
going over to idolatry. It was looked upon as leaving
God and the Sanctuary for the worship of idols in tents.
But this impudent challenge of Biehri the man of Belial
was regarded as a contemptuous defiance of, and derogatory
to the God of Israel which apparently escaped with
impunity. Hence the Sopherim transposed the two middle
letters of the word and VH^X*? to his gods, became vSlN^
to his tents. For this reason the ancient authorities tell us
the expression in question was also altered in the same
phrase in i Kings XII 16 and 2 Chron. X 16 which record
a similar event.

(9) Jerem. II 11. — The ancient records emphatically
declare that the original reading here was: "but my people
hath changed (Hl33) my glory", and that the Sopherim
altered it into: "but my people hath changed (11133) his
glory. The same reverend motive which underlies the
alteration with regard to the name of God in the preceding
passage determined the change here. The expression *Tl33
glory, was considered to denote the visible manifestation
of the Deity, i. e. the Shechinah. To say, therefore, that
the Israelites changed this Supreme Glory for an idol was
deemed too bold a statement and derogatory to the Lord.
Hence the alteration of the suffix first person to the third
person which was easily effected by the substitution of
the Vav (1) for the Yod ('). And though "his glory" may
also refer to the Lord yet it leaves room for a divergence
of opinion and at all events removes the harshness of the
sentence. The ancient Versions exhibit this alteration of
the vSopherim which is also followed both in the Authorised
Version and in the Revised Version.

CHAP. XI. j The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 357

(10) Ezek. VIII 17. — "And lo, they put the branch
to (DSN) their nose", we are told by all the ancient autho-
rities is a correction of the Sopherim and that it was
originally: "and lo, they put the branch to (>BN) my nose",
i. e. face. To understand the alteration here effected it is
necessary to examine the context. The Lord here enumerates
the great abominations which the house of Judah has
committed in His very Sanctuary. He states that they
have not only profaned His altar by introducing the
idolatrous sun-worship into the Temple of the Lord, "but
still further to provoke me to anger they scornfully display
the branch which is used as an emblem in this abominable
worship into ('SX) my very nostrils". This bold anthropo-
morphism was afterwards regarded as derogatory to the
supreme Deity and hence in accordance with the prescribed
canon was altered by the Sopherim.

(11) Hosea IV 7. — "I will change their glory into
shame" exhibits another alteration of the Sopherim. The
ancient authorities state that the original reading here
was Ht33 my glory, instead of D*Tl33 their glory. But it is
evident from the context that this only exhibits partially
the alteration which the Sopherim introduced here, since
"I will change my glory into shame" is both against the
context and against the principle which underlies these
alterations. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the
alteration also included the verb which as the Mechiltha
rightly points out was originally Tttfl or WBH Hiphil
preterite third person, i. e. they have changed, instead of
TftX future first person singular, i. e. / will change. Accord-
ingly the text originally read:

My glory they have changed into shame

which the Sopherim altered into:

Their glory I will change into shame.

358 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

This is in perfect harmony with the alteration recorded
in No. 9.

(12) Hab. I 12. — "Art thou not from everlasting,
O Lord my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die." All
the ancient records emphatically state that this exhibits
the corrected text by the Sopherim and that the original
reading was:

Art thou not from everlasting?

O Lord my God, mine Holy One, thou diest not.

The parallelism plainly shows that this is the correct
reading. The address in both clauses is to the Lord who
is described in the first clause as being from everlasting
and in the second clause as never dying or enduring for
ever. The introduction, therefore, of a new subject in the
plural with the predicate "we shall not die" thus ascribing
immortality to the people is contrary to the scope of the
passage. Not only has the Chaldee preserved the original
reading by paraphrasing it "thy word endureth for ever",1
but Rashi (1040— 1 105) makes it the basis of his explanation.
"The prophet says why art thou silent to all this. Art
thou not from everlasting my God, mine Holy One, who
diest not."2 It is very remarkable that the Revised Version
which has not noticed any other of the alterations of the
Sopherim has the following note in the margin on this
passage: "according to an ancient Jewish tradition thou
diest not". The reason for the alteration is not far to seek.
It was considered offensive to predicate of the Lord
"thou diest not". Hence "we shall not die" was sub-
stituted.

n^x ■•rnp *rbx nnpfc nnx xbn nx? bib trnnn nab rrntfi iran n&x 2
pi "iron m>» xin xnp&Bw dhbid ^ipria "*nx niaj *6 airorc nn man xb
*6n itDTB hi dhbidh fpn ^1 ^"WM CEniB&n nmn pi mix Dnnsm

.to rniab "win bx wnp anpa nbx nnx

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah ; its Rise and Development. 350

(13) Zech. II 12 in the Hebrew II 8 in the Authorised
Version. — Here the original reading", which was: "he that
toucheth you toucheth the apple of (WV) my eye", has
been altered by the Sopherim into: "he that toucheth you
toucheth the apple of (1W) his eye", i. e. as if one were
to touch the apple of his own eye. Though "the eye of
the Lord" is not unfrequently used in the Bible ' yet "the
apple of my eye" (WV rQ3) occurs no where else. It was,
therefore, regarded derogatory to the Deity that he himself
should ascribe to himself so pronounced an anthropo-
morphatic feature.2 Hence in accordance with the rule
which underlies these alterations the Yod (^) was changed
into Vav (1) as in the case of the alteration exhibited in
No. 9.

(14) Malachi I 13. — All the ancient authorities
emphatically declare that the original reading here was:
"ye have snuffed (VllK) at me", and that the Sopherim
have altered it into: "ye have snuffed (im'N) at /V", because
it was regarded derogatory to the Lord to apply to him
such an offensive predicate. That the text had originally
WX at me is, moreover, attested by Rashi who plainly
says: "this is one of the eighteen alterations of the
Sopherim. The textual reading ifiiX at it, was originally
*filN at me, but the passage was altered and they [i. e.

1 Comp. Ps XXXIII 18 with Jerem. XXIV 6; Ezek. V II ; VII 4 &c.

2 In Deut. XXXII 10 the phrase is not exactly the same since it is
here *TV Jltt'XS which is also translated as the apple of his eye. There was
no necessity for any alteration here because the expression does not necessarily
refer to God. The passage may mean God kept Israel as one keeps the apple
of his eye. The Septuagint, the Jerusalem Targum and the Syriac omit the
article altogether, i. e. he kept Israel as the eye-apple, whilst Onkelos, who
translates the passage in the plural, renders the suffix also in the plural, i. e.
he kept them as the apple of their eye. Comp. Geiger, Urschrift and Ueber-
sttzungen der Bibel, p. 324, Breslau 1857.

360 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

the Sopherim] substituted for it 1filK at it".1 St. Jerome
must also have known this fact since he thinks that we
might read >fi1tf at me? and indeed this reading is found
in many MSS.

(15) Ps. CVI 20. — 'They changed (DTto?) their glory."
This we are told exhibits one of the alterations of the
Sopherim. The original reading was: "they changed (H123) my
glory", but it was altered because the statement that the
Israelites changed God's visible Shechinah for the image of
an ox was deemed derogatory to the Divine Being. The
reason, therefore, which underlies this alteration is exactly
the same which induced the changes in the passages marked
Nos. 9 and 11. It is to be remarked that both some MSS.
of the Septuagint and the Vulgate exhibit the reading i"["D3
his glory, in the third person, i. e. God's glory or Shechinah.

(16) Job. VII 20. — According to the testimony of
the ancient records the original reading of this passage was:

Why hast thou set me as a mark for thee
And why have I become a burden unto thee?

This reading is still preserved in the Septuagint and
is demanded by the parallelism and the context. The
declaration, however, on the part of Job that he had
become a burden to God was considered by the redactors
of the text as bordering on blasphemy. Hence the Sopherim
altered ybv unto thee, into *>bv unto myself, by the simple
process of omitting the single letter Caph ("[). Ibn Ezra
(1088 — 1 177) one of the most distinguished Jewish commen-
tators of the middle ages boldly declares that "though

row vbx snss ma imx onnan /naiD pp«n bv "OTi rma nnK r, ]

♦iniK "nn^i "iron

3 Ut in Hebraeo legi potest, et exsufflastis me, haec dicendo, non
sacrificio, sed mihi cui sacrificabatis, fecistis injuriam. Comp. the article on
the Tiknn Sopherim by the Rev. Oliver Turnbull Crane in the Hebraica,
Vol. III. p. 243, 1887.

CHAP. XI | The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 361

*bV unto myself is an alteration of the Sopherim neverthless
in explaining the passage it is best to ignore this alteration".1

(17) Job. XXXII 3. — "And yet they had condemned
(Di*N) Job", exhibits an alteration of the Sopherim. According
to the List of these alterations preserved in the Maase
Ephod the text originally was "and because they had
condemned (D^ii^Jj) God." The context shows that the
original reading is preferable to the emendation. Job's
three friends came to prove that God's providential dealings
towards the afflicted patriarch were perfectly just, inasmuch
as his sufferings were the merited punishment for his
sinful life. But instead of vindicating the Divine justice
they ceased to answer Job because he was right in their
eyes (DfWW as the Septuagint rightly has it) and they
thereby inculpated the conduct of God. The expression,
however, "and they condemned God" was considered
blasphemous and hence Job was substituted for God.

(18) Lamentations III 20. — "And my soul (^ttfDi) is
humbled in me," according to the testimony of the ancient
authorities and the Massorah is another alteration of the
Sopherim. The original reading was: "and (TOD3) thy soul
will mourn over me" or "will condescend unto me". The
most cursory examination of the context will disclose the
fact that the original reading restores the logical sequence,
the true rhythm and the pathetic beauty of the text. We
need only read the three verses together which form the
stanza to see it:

Verse 19: Remember my misery and my forlorn state

the wormwood and the gall.
„ 20: Yea verily thou wilt remember

and thy soul will mourn over me.
„ 21: This I recall to my heart.

therefore, I have hope

•foa ppti xbi Kin -itr&c wnwso btx onsic p,m Ktra1? *bv sfmri l

362 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

The expression, however, "thy soul (?ptfS3) will mourn"
as applied to God, was considered an offensive anthropo-
morphism and, therefore, the Sopherim in harmony with
the rule which underlies all these corrections, altered it
into my soul 0ttfS3) and thus marred the beauty and pathos
of the stanza.

These passages, however, are simply quoted as
typical instances and are by no means intended to be
exhaustive. Hence none of the above named ancient
documents specify the exact number of the Sopheric
alterations, but simply adduce sundry examples to illustrate
the principle that indecent and anthropomorphatic ex-
pressions are to be altered by the authoritative redactors
of the text. Hence too the different records vary in the
number of the examples which they respectively quote.
The Siphri adduces seven passages, the Yalkut ten, the
Mechiltha eleven and the Tanchuma seventeen passages.
That there were other passages in which identically the
same or similar phrases occurred in the primitive text
and that they too underwent the same process of alteration
in accordance with the canon to remove indelicate and
improper expressions will be seen from the following
considerations.

The oldest Massorah in the St. Petersburg- Codex of
A. D.916, which registers these alterations of the Sopherim,
adds two more examples which are not given in any of
the ancient documents. And though the catchwords are
simply given without mentioning what the original reading
was which the Sopherim altered, there is no difficulty in
ascertaining it by the lig'ht of the other Sopheric alteration
and by bearing in mind the principle which underlies these
changes.

The catchword for the first change is D^TO =
Malachi I 12. This indicates that originally the text was:

CHAI'. XI | The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 363

>filN D^TO "ye have polluted /we" (comp. Kzek. XIII ig),
and that >rilK me has been altered into Im'N him, in ac-
cordance with the same alteration which we are told the
Sopherim made in verse 13, for though this does not
alter the sense it softens it by obviating the direct
reference to God. Possibly the alteration may also have
included the catchword itself. The original reading may
have been >f)lK O^pft ye have cursed me, and the Koph
(p) has been changed into Cheth (fl).

The catchword for the second change is D*I?Dp which
manifestly refers to Malachi III 9. The original reading
here was: "with a curse ye have cursed" (DHINft), the active
participle as is evident from the parallelism:

Ye have cursed with a curse
And ye have robbed me.

As this cursing was pronounced against God which
was blasphemy in the hig-hest degree, the active was
changed into the passive by the substitution of Nun (3) for
Mem (ft) which now makes this clause quite detached
from the rest of the sentence. The anxiety to mitigate
this clause is also seen from the recension which the Greek
translators had before them since the Septuagint exhibits
DW DDX nxift3 in a vision ye have seen.

X. Impious expressions towards the Almighty. — We
have now to adduce a few passages into which changes
have been introduced by the authorised redactors of the
text, but which are not expressly mentioned in the
official Lists. Foremost amongst these are instances in
which the original reading described blasphemy or cursing
God. Such profane phrases were deemed offensive to the
ears of the devote worshippers when the Scriptures were
read publicly before the congregation. It was the anxiety
to mitigate these harsh and impious expressions towards
the Almighty which gave rise to the editorial canon in

364 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

accordance with which the Sopheric alterations were
made.

2 Sam. XII 14. — "Howbeit, because by this deed
thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the
Lord to blaspheme." In looking at the context it will be
seen that David is charged by the Prophet with having
committed the twofold crime of adultery and murder for
each of which the Divine Law imposed the penalty of death
(Levit. XX 10; XXIV 17). As an absolute monarch none
of his subjects dared to enforce the penalty. Hence it
was David himself who by his scandalous violation of
God's Law preeminently blasphemed the Lord though in
a secondary sense he also gave occasion for others to follow
his example. Such harsh conduct towards God, however,
which in ordinary cases offended the feelings of the pious,
was in this particular instance more especially intolerable.
The direct predicate that the Shepherd King, the sweet
Singer of Israel that he had blasphemed the Lord was,
therefore, mitigated by the insertion of the expression
*3*ft the enemies of, so that the original reading thou
hast great// blasphemed the Lord became "thou hast given
great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme".
That this is an official alteration is attested by Rashi, one
of the most illustrious Jewish expositors of the middle
ages and the most faithful depository of the ancient
traditions. He emphatically declares: "This is an alteration
due to the reverence for the glory of God."1 The alteration
is, moreover, indicated by the fact that J\sp the Piel, which
occurs no fewer than thirteen times, never denotes to cause
to blaspheme, but to blaspheme, to curse, to contemn, to
provoke &c. and is universally rendered so even in the
Authorised Version and in no single instance in the sense

.nbra1? mas nn-i m Kin •'las -

CHAP. XI. J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 365

of the Hiphil.1 The text, therefore, as it now stands can
only mean "because thou hast greatly blasphemed the
enemies of the Lord" which is nonsense.

Ps. X 3. — Still more remarkable is the instance
before us which exhibits the same phrase. This verse
literally translated is as follows:

For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire,
And the robber blesseth blasphemeth the Lord.

It will be seen at once that the expression Wis he
blesseth, is a marginal gloss on the word TJO he blasphemeth,
which in accordance with the principle underlying these
alterations, is designed to remove the harsh and impious
phrase "he blasphemeth the Lord". The text, therefore,
exhibits a blending of the two recensions which obtained
in two different Schools, viz. the School which had the
primitive reading HiiT f>N3 he blasphemeth the Lord, and the
School which substituted for it flliT T)S he blesseth the Lord.2
Some idea of the extraordinary expedients to which trans-
lators and commentators, by ignoring this fact, have
resorted in order to make an intelligible sense from the
text as it now stands may be gathered from the Authorised
Version and the Revised Version. The Authorised Version
renders the verse:

For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire
And blesseth the covetous whom the Lord abhorreth
Margin Or.

And the covetous blesseth himself he abhorreth the Lord

1 Comp. Numb. XIV II, 23; XVI 30; Deut. XXXI 20; 1 Sam. II 17;
Isa. I 4; V 24; LX 14; Jerem. XXIII 17; Ps. X 3, 13; LXIV 10, 18.

2 In verse 13. however, of this very Psalm where the same phrase
occurs, there does not seem to have been any euphemistic gloss and hence
the redactors left the original reading alone. The same is the case in Isa. I, 4.
Like the other editorial principles this canon for reasons which we cannot
at present discuss, was not uniformly acted upon.

360 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

whilst the Revised Version translates it:

For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire
And the covetous renounceth yea contemneth the Lord
Margin Or.

And blesseth the covetous, but revileth the Lord.

Still more objectionable and more offensive to the
ear was the phrase "to curse the Lord". The official
redactors of the text have, therefore, substituted in cases
where it occurred, the same euphemistic expression 112
to Mess, for the original reading bbp to curse, or n*r;i to
blaspheme.

i Kings XXI 10, 13. — We are told here that
Jezebel suborned two worthless fellows to testify that
Naboth had blasphemed both God and the king for which
the Law imposed the penalty of death (Levit. XXIV 16;
Deut. XIII 9, 10). But the Hebrew as it now stands, says
the very reverse, inasmuch as it literally means: "Thou
didst bless (A3 "12) God and the king". In both the Authorised
Version and the Revised Version the principle which
underlies this reading in the original is entirely obscured,
because the verb in question is rendered blaspheme,
renounce, curse &c. The verb TO to bless, has no such
antiphrastic and euphemistic sense. The assertion that
because it is used as a salutation both in meeting and
parting,1 therefore, it came to denote by a process of
evolution to renounce, to blaspheme, to curse &c. is contrary
to the very nature of its usage. Both in meeting and
parting it expresses the kindliest sentiments, wishes for
happiness and friendship and not a single instance can be
adduced in which it is used even by implication to denote
parting for ever in a hostile sense, much less to convey
the idea of blaspheming or cursing. Such desperate

1 Comp. 2 Kings IV 29; Prov. XXVII 14; I Chron. XVI 43 &c.

CHAP. XI | The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 367

expedients at artificial interpretation would never have
been resorted to if the canon adopted by the redactors
of the text had been sufficiently attended to. Some of the
best modern critics, however, now acknowledge that the
original reading here was either DD^il as the Chaldee has
it or FlWfJ as it is in the Syriac and these are the two
alternative readings which I have given in the notes on
this passage in my edition of the text.

The sense of '•nil to bless being now definitely
extablished and the redactorial principle which underlies
its substitution for ^p to curse, in the text having been
duly set forth, it is superfluous to discuss the instances
in Job in which the same Sopheric alterations have been
introduced. Some of the best critics now admit that the
original reading in all the four passages in question was
^p,1 whilst others unhesitatingly exhibit it in the text.
In accordance with my principle, however, not to alter
the Massoretic text I have given the primitive reading in
the notes with the introductory remark b"l = it appears to
me, I am of opinion, it ought to be, because though the
reading is perfectly certain there is no MS. authority
for it.

XL The safeguarding of the Tetragrammaton and other
Divine Names. — Without entering into a discussion on the
pronunciation or signification of the Divine Name (TliT which
is beyond the scope of this section, we have yet to call
attention to the fact that the Jews from time immemorial
have regarded with the utmost sacredness and reverence
this incommunicable Name of the most High God, and that
the awe manifested for the Tetragrammaton has played an
important part in the redaction of the text. Throughout
the Hebrew Bible wherever ffliT occurs by itself, it has

: Comp Job. I 5. 11; II 5. 9.

368 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

not its own points, but those which belong to ^IX Lord,
only that the Yod (*>) has the simple Sheva instead of the
Sheva Pathach = Chateph Pathach Q) and is pronounced
Adonai = KvQLog, and when friiT ^IX occur together HliT
is pointed in the Massoretic text fllrp with the vowel points
which belong to D*Pfrj$ God.1 Owing to this extreme re-
verence for the Ineffable Name the redactors of the text not
unfrequently safeguarded it by substituting for it either >7TN
Lord, which is followed throughout the Septuagint and the
New Testament, or D*rfri$ God.

In illustration of this fact I shall restrict myself to
a few of the parallel passages which record identically
the same events and about which there cannot possibly
be any doubt. Both in 2 Sam. V 17 — 25 and 1 Chron.
XIV 8 — 17 David's encounter with the Philistines is
described. In Samuel the Tetragrammaton (m'iT) is used
throughout the description, whereas in Chronicles God
(D^ii^N) is substituted for it as will be seen from the
following:

2 Samuel V I Chronicles XIV

V 19 And David enquired of (Plti"P) XIV 10 And David enquired of

the Lord (D^rt^K) God

„ 20 the Lord hath broken forth upon „ u God hath broken in upon

mine enemies mine enemies

„ 23 and David enquired of the B 14 and David enquired again

Lord of God

„ 24 for then shall the Lord go out „ 15 for God is gone out before

before thee thee

„ 25 and David did so as the Lord „ 16 and David did as God corn-
commanded him. manded him.

The same is the case in the description of the removal
of the ark to the city of David of which we have also a
duplicate record, one in 2 Sam. VI and one in 1 Chron. XIII
as will be seen from the following:

1 Comp. The Massordh, letter X. § 116. Vol. 1. p. 26.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 369

2 Samuel VI I Chronicles XIII

VI 9 And David was afraid of (HilT) XIII 12 and David was afraid of

the Lord (E^X) God

„ 9 the ark of the Lord „ 12 the ark of God

n n and the ark of the Lord con- „ 14 and the ark of God continued

tinued

„ 17 and they brought in the ark of XVI I and they brought in the ark

the Lord of God

„ 17 and David offered .... before „ 1 and they offered .... before

the Lord. God.

The duplicate Psalm in the Psalter itself, viz. XIV
and LIII illustrates the same fact. In the former the
Tetragrammaton is used, whilst in the hitter the expression
(D^ii^X) God, is substituted for it as will be seen from the
following comparison:

Psalm XIV Psalm LIII

XIV 2 The Lord (HlIT) looked down LIII 3 God (D^K) looked down

from heaven from heaven

„ 4 and call not upon the Lord „ 5 they call not upon God

„ 7 when the Lord bringeth back „ 6 when God bringeth back the

the captivity. captivity.

There are, however, a number of compound names
in the Bible into the composition of which three out of
the four letters of the Incommunicable Name have entered.
Moreover, these letters which begin the names in question
are actually pointed ifT Jeho, as the Tetragrammaton itself
and hence in a pause at the reading* of the first part of the
name it sounded as if the reader was pronouncing the
Ineffable Name. To gaurd against it an attempt was made by
a certain School of redactors of the text to omit the letter
He (n) so that the first part of the names in question has
been altered from Jeho- ('in*') into Jo (V). It was, however,
only an attempt on the part of a certain School for as we
shall see from the following analysis, the alterations were
only partially carried out and in most cases the primitive

370 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

orthography has survived. In the examination of them I
shall give these names according to the order of the Hebrew
alphabet and must premise that for the purposes of this
investigation no notice can be taken of the fact that two,
three or more persons have often the same name in the Bible.

(i) ?n$0'iT Jehoachaz = whom Jehovah sustains, which
occurs twenty-four times, has retained the primitive ortho-
graphy in twenty passages, viz. 2 Kings X 35; XIII 1, 4,
7, 8, 9, 10, 22, 25, 25; XIV 8, 17; XXIII 30, 31, 34;
2 Chron. XXI 17; XXV 17, 23, 25; XXXVI 1 and it is
only in four places that it has been altered into

jnKf Joachaz, viz. 2 Kings XIV 1; 2 Chron. XXXIV 8;
XXXVI 2, 4. With the exception of 2 Kings XIV 1 the
marked distinction between the two different spellings
which the Hebrew exhibits is obliterated in the Authorised
Version.

(2) ttfatiiT Jehoash = whom Jehovah bestowed, which occurs
sixty-four times, has only retained the original spelling in
the following seventeen passages: 2 Kings XII 1, 2, 3, 5,
7, 8, 19; XIII 10, 25; XIV 8, 9, 11, 13, 13, 15, 16, 17, whilst
no fewer than forty-seven passages

t^Xi^ Jo ash is exhibited in the altered orthography, viz.
Judg. VI 11, 29, 30, 31; VII 14; VIII 13, 29, 32, 32;

1 Kings XXII 26; 2 Kings XI 2; XII 20, 21; XIII 1, 9,
10, 12, 13, 13, 14, 25; XIV 1, 1, 3, 17, 23, 23, 27; Hos. I 1;
Amos I 1 ; 1 Chron. Ill 1 1 ; IV 22 ; XII 3 ; 2 Chron. XVIII 25 ;
XXII 11; XXIV 1, 2, 4, 22, 24; XXV 17, 18,21,23, 23, 25,25.
The altered form, therefore, has prevailed in this name.

(3) "D?1fT Jehozabad = whom Jehovah bestowed, which
occurs thirteen times, has the primitive spelling in only
four instances, viz. 2 Kings XII 22) 1 Chron. XXVI 4;

2 Chron. XVII 18; XXIV 26; whereas

*"D?1> Jozabad the altered orthography is exhibited in
the following ten passages: Ezra VIII ^^; X 22, 2^; Neh.

CHAF. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 371

VIII 7; XI 16; i Chron. XII 4, 20, 20; 2 Chron. XXXI 13;
XXXV 9. Here again the altered spelling prevails.

(4) pniiT Jehohanan = whom Jehovah graciously gave, which
occurs thirty- three times, retained the original orthography
in the following nine instances: Ezra X 6, 28; Neh. VI 18;
XII 1 3; 42; 1 Chron. XXVI 3; 2 Chron. XVII 15; XXIII 1;
XXVIII 12; whereas the text exhibits the altered spelling

pm> Johanan in no fewer than twenty-four passages,
viz. 2 Kings XXV 23; Jerem. XL 8, 13, 15, 16; XLI 11,
13, 14, 15, 16; XLII 1, 8; XLIII 2, 4, 5; Ezra VIII 12;
Neh. XII 22, 23; 1 Chron. Ill 15, 24; V35, 36; XII 4, 12. Here
too the altered orthography prevails. In the Authorised
Version the original spelling is obliterated.

(5) UTiiT Jehoiada = whom Jehovah knoweth, which
occurs forty-seven times, has the primitive orthography in
the following forty-two passages: 2 Sam. VIII 18; XX 23;
XXIII 20, 22; 1 Kings i, 8, 26, 32, 36, 38, 44; II 25, 29,
34; 35; 46; IV 4; 2 Kings XI 4, 9, 9, 15, 17; XII 3, 8, 10;
Jerem. XXIX 26; 1 Chron. XI 22, 24; XII 27; XVIII 17;
XXVII 5, 34; 2 Chron. XXII n; XXIII 1, 8, 8, 9, 11, 14,
16, 18; XXIV 2, 3, 6, \2, 14, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, 25, and
the abbreviated form

VW Joiada in the following five instances: Neh. Ill 6;

XII IO, II, 22' XIII 28.

(6) p?*1fT Jehoiachin == whom Jehovah hath appointed, which
occurs eleven times, retains the original orthography in ten
passages, viz. 2 Kings XXIV 6, 8, 12, 15; XXV 27, 27;
Jerem. LII 31, 31; 2 Chron. XXXVI 8, 9; and it is in one
instance where

pyV Joiachin the altered spelling is exhibited, viz.
Ezek. I 2. The Authorised Version confounds the different
spellings also in this name.

(7) D*jMT Jehoiakim = whom Jehovah hath set up, which

occurs forty-one times, has retained the original ortho-

372 Introduction. [CHAP. XI

g'raphy in no fewer than thirty-seven places, viz. 2 Kings
XXIII 34; 35; 36; XXIV i, 5, 6, 19; Jerem. I 3; XXII 18,
24; XXIV 1; XXV 1; XXVI 1, 21, 22, 23; XXVII 1, 20;
XXVIII 4; XXXV 1; XXXVI 1, 9, 28, 29, 30, 32;
XXXVII 1; XLV 1; XLVI 2; LII 2; Dan. I 1, 2; 1 Chron.
Ill 15, 16; 2 Chron. XXXVI 4, 5, 8; and it is only in
four passages where

D*p*1* Joiakim, the altered form is to be found in
Neh. II 10, 10, 12, 26.

(8) D*TiiV Jehoiarib = whom Jehovah defends, which
occurs seven times, the text exhibits the primitive ortho-
graphy in only two instances, viz. 1 Chron. IX 10; XXIV 7,
whilst in five passages the altered form

yyy Joiarib, is exhibited, viz. Ezra VIII 16; Neh. XI 5,
10; XII 6, 19.

(9) 3*T31iT Jehonadab = whom Jehovah gave spontaneously,
which occurs fifteen times, has the original spelling in the
following eight passages: 2 Sam. XIII 5; 2 Kings X 15,
15, 23; Jerem. XXXV 8, 14, 16, 18, and in seven instances
the text exhibits the altered form

2!jV Jonadab, viz. 2 Sam. XIII 3, 3, 32, 35; Jerem.
XXXV 6, 10, 19. This difference is obliterated in the
Authorised Version.

(10) jrDiiT Jehonathan = whom Jehovah gave, which
occurs one-hundred and twenty-one times, has the original
spelling in no fewer than seventy-nine passages, viz.
Judg. XVIII 30; 1 Sam. XIV 6, 8; XVIII 1, 1, 3, 4; XIX
h 2> 4; 6, 7, 7, 7; XX 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17,
18, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 37, 38, 38, 39, 40, 42;
XXI 1; XXIII 16, 18; XXXI 2; 2 Sam. 1, 4, 5, 12, 17,
22, 23, 25, 26; IV 4, 4; IX 1, 3, 6, 7; XV 27, 36; XVII 17,
20; XXI 7, 7, 12, 13, 14, 21; XXIII 32; Jerem. XXXVII
15, 20; XXXVIII 26; Neh. XII 18; 1 Chron. VIII 33, 341
IX 39, 40; XX 7; XXVII 25, 32; 2 Chron. XVII 8, and

CHAP. XI | The Massorah; its Rise and Development. .'»7.'>

in the following forty-two instances the text has it in the
abbreviated form

[fijl* Jonathan i Sam. XIII 2, 3, 16, 22, 22', IV 1, 3,
4, 12, 12, 13, 13, 14, 17, 21, 27, 29, 39, 40, 41, 42, 42, 43,
43, 44, 45, 45, 49 5 XIX 1; 1 Kings I 42, 43; Jerem. XL 8;
Ezra VIII 6; X 15; Neh. XII 11, 11, 14, 35; 1 Chron. II 32,
33; X 2; XI 34. In the Authorised Version this distinction
is absolutely obliterated.

(11) PlDiiT Jehoseph only occurs once, viz. Ps. LXXXI 6,
and in all the numerous passages where this name is to
be found in the Bible it is

flDi* Joseph. In the Authorised Version the distinction
is obliterated.

(12) pl¥liT Jehozadak = Jehovah makeih just, which
occurs thirteen times retains the original orthography in
the following eight passages: Hag. I 1, 12, 14; II 2, 4;
Zech. VI 1 1 ; 1 Chron. V 40, 41, whilst it has the abbreviated
form

pl)LV Jozadak, in five instances, viz. Ezra III 2, 8;
V 2; X 18; Neh. XII 26. The distinction is confounded in
the Authorised Version.

(13) DTi IT Jehoram = whom Jehovah exalted, which
occurs forty-nine times, has the original orthography in
the following twenty-nine passages: 1 Kings XXII 51;
2 Kings I 17, 17; III 1, 6; VIII 16, 25, 29; IX 15, 17, 21,
21, 22, 23, 24; XII 19; 2 Chron. XVII 8; XXI 1, 3, 4, 5,
9, 16; XXII 1, 5, 6, 6, 7, 11, and the abbreviated form

DTP Joratn, in the following twenty passages: 2 Sam.

VIII 10; 2 Kings VIII 16, 2i; 23, 24, 25, 28, 28, 29, 29;

IX 14, 14, 16, 16, 29; XI 2; 1 Chron. Ill 11; XXVI 25;
2 Chron. XXII 5, 7.

(14) EOEh'rp Jehoshaphat = whom Jehovah judgeth or
pleadeth for, which occurs eighty-five times, has the original
orthography in the following eighty-three passages: 2 Sam.

374 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

VIII 16; XX 24; 1 Kings IV 3, 17; XV 24; XXII 2, 4, 4,

5; 7; 8; 8; IO; l8; 29> 3<>, 32; 32, 41, 42, 46, 49; 5<>, 50, 51,
52; 2 Kings I 17; III 1, 7, 1.1, 12, 12, 14; VIII 16, 16; IX 2,
14; XII 19; Joel IV 2, 12; 1 Chron. Ill 10; XVIII 15;
2 Chron. XVII 1, 3, 5, 10, n, 12; XVIII 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 7,
9, 17; 28, 29, 31, 31; XIX 1, 2, 4, 8; XX 1, 2, 3, 5, 15,
18, 20, 25, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37; XXI 1, 2, 2, 12; XXII 9,
whilst it has the abbreviated form

EDE^ Joshapkat, in only two instances, viz. 1 Chron.
XI 43;TXV24.

As far as I can trace it there are only four names which
are compounded with Jeho (iJT) and which have entirely
retained their primitive orthography: (1) rTCPfiT Jehoadah
= whom Jehovah adorns, which occurs twice, 1 Chron. VIII
36, 36. (2) ngiPP Jehoaddan, the feminine of the former
name, which also occurs twice, once in 2 Kings XIV 2 in
the Keri and once in 2 Chron. XXV. 1. (3) JDttttfp Jehosheba
= Jehovah is her oath, i. e. a worshipper of Jehovah which
occurs once in 2 Kings XI 2 and its alternative form
niDttfliT Jehoshabat which occurs twice in 2 Chron. XXII 11
and (4) PttfliT Jehoshua = Jehovah his helper, which occurs
over two-hundred and fifty times. It will thus be seen
that with these rare exceptions some of the Schools of
textual critics have made efforts to substitute 1' Jo, for
liT Jeho, in every name which begins with the Tetra-
grammaton.

In no fewer than seven names, however, the redactors
of the text have completely succeeded in obliterating the
initial i.T Jeho, by substituting for it the simple V Jo.
(1) 2RV Joab = Jehovah is his father, which occurs about
one-hundred twenty-seven times. (2) nxl* Joah = Jehovah is
his brother, i. e. confederate, which occurs eleven times:
2 Kings XVIII 18, 26, 37; Isa. XXXVI 3, 11, 22;
1 Chron. VI 6; XXVI 4; 2 Chron. XXIX 12, 12; XXXIV 8.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah: its Rise and Development. 375

(3) Wl1 Joed = Jehovah is his witness, which occurs once in
Neh. XI 7. (4) *W1* Joezer = Jehovah is his helper, which
also occurs once in 1 Chron. XII 6. (5) ttfW Joash =
Jehovah hastens, i. e. to his help, which occurs twice in
1 Chron. VII 8; XXVII 28. (6) m> Jorai = Jehovah teacheth
him, which occurs once in 1 Chron. V 13 and (7) Dfll' Jotham
— Jehovah is upright, which occurs twenty-four times: Judg.
IX 5, 7, 21, 57; 2 Kings XV 5, 7, 30, $2, 36, 38; XVI i;
Isa. I 1; VII 1; Hos. I 1; Micah I i; 1 Chron. II 47; III 12;
V 17; 2 Chron. XXVI 21, 23; XXVII i, 6, 7, 9. Of these
names not a single instance remains in the present Masso-
retic text in which the original form irp Jelio, is exhibited.

The great reluctance manifested by the ancient autho-
rities to pronounce the Tetragrammaton was also extended
to Jah (rp), which is the half of the Ineffable Name, and
though they found it difficult to substitute another ex-
pression for this monosyllable as in the case of In-
communicable Name they adopted safeguards against its
being carelessly profaned. These means to which the
Sopherim resorted account for several of the phenomena
in our present Massoretic text.

In discussing* the treatment which this monosyllabic
Divine name has received from the redactors of the text
it is necessary to separate the twenty-two instances in
which IT Jah, is unanimously recognised by the ancient
Schools to stand for the fuller form Hirp Jehovah, from
those passages about which there is a difference of opinion
in these Schools. By so doing we shall be better able to
understand certain peculiarities which are visible throughout
the Hebrew Scriptures both in the MSS. and in the editions.

The twenty-two passages, in which all the Schools
agree that Jah ipC1) is the Divine Name, are as follows:
Exod. XV 2; Isa. XII 2; XXVI 4; XXXVIII n, n;
Ps. LXVIII 5, 19; LXXVII 12; LXXXIX 9; XCIV 7, .2;

376 Introduction. [chai\ XI.

en i9; cxv 17, 18; cxviii 5, 14, 17, 18, 19; exxn 4;

CXXX 3 ; CL 6. In all these cases the He (i"l) has Mappik,
viz. FP which not only indicates its divinity, but is designed
to conceal the original pronunciation of this Ineffable Name.
With the solitary exception in Ps. LXVIII 5 [4] where it
is Jah, the Authorised Version translates it Lord, being the
same expression by which Jehovah is rendered without
any remark in the margin to call attention to the fact that
it is not the usual Tetragrammaton. The Revised Version
which follows the Authorised Version in Ps. LXVIII 4 [5]
has also Jah in Ps. LXXXIX 8 [9]. The Revisers, however,
consistently remarks in the margin against every instance
"Heb. Jah".

The essential difference between the ancient Schools
is with regard to JT Jah, in the expression rT'frS'l Hallelujah.
To understand the controversy on this subject it is
necessary to refer to some of the canons by which the
Scribes had to be guided in copying the Sacred Scriptures.
Wherever, the Scribe in transcribing the text, came to
one of the divine names he had to pause and mentally to
sanctify the sacred name. If he made a mistake in copying
a divine name, writing the Lord instead of God &c. he
was not allowed to erase it, but he had to enclose it in a
square to show that it is cancelled. Moreover he was not
allowed to divide a divine name writing one half at the
end of the line, and the other half at the beginning of
the next line.

As Hallelujah is a typical expression and as the
controversy about it affects a whole class of words
terminating with, jah (IT), and moreover, as this is reflected
in the MSS. and in the editions, we subjoin the discussion.
In the Jerusalem Talmud it is as follows:

About Hallelujah there is a difference of opinion between Rab and
Samuel, one says it should be divided into two words, the other says it

CHAP. XI. | The Massorah; its Rise aud Development. 377

should not be divided. According to the one who says it is to be divided
IT jah must not be erased, whilst according to the other who says it should
not be divided IT jdh may be erased and we do not know which is which
Now from what Rab said I heard from my uncle [R. Chiga] if any one
were to give me the Psalter of R. Meier I would erase all the Hallelujahs
because he did not sanctify the word in writing it, wrongly regarding IT jah
as common, it is he [i. e. Rab] who said that Hallelu-jah is in two words.
However, the opinion of the teachers is divided for R. Simon says in the
name of R. Joshua b. Levi the Psalter uses ten different expressions for

praise and Hallelujah is the most sublime of them all because the

Divine name and praise are both combined therein {Jerusalem Megilla I. 9).1

In the Babylon Talmud, however, where the same
canon about the orthography of Hallelujah is discussed we
are told that it is Rab who in accordance with the Codex
of his uncle R. Chiga divided it into two words, viz.
iT ibbn = praise ye the Lord, as will be seen from the
following statement:

It was asked: How is Hallelujah written according to Rab? It was
answered: Because Rab said I have seen the Psalter of my uncle [R. Chiga]
in which Hallchi was written in one line and jah in another line [hence he
divided it]. Now in this he differed from R. Joshua b. Levi, for R. Joshua
b. Levi said the meaning of Hallelujah is praise ye exceedingly . In this,
however, R. Joshua is inconsistent with himself because R. Joshua b. Levi

had said the Psalter uses ten different expressions for praise and

Hallelujah is the most sublime of them all for the Divine name and praise
are combined herein (Pesachim iija).2

it *bbr\ tb rrbbn na« nnim rr ibbn na* nn bmtsm an mhbn <
xn naa ptai fcn nas ptB jtt 161 pbm lrm pns: rrbbn ra prcw inn p^n:
•:x prna a*n bv n*bmr\ **£c ana *b pr ex -ran [a rvyaa? an nam na f»
- m pr^a pann prr^a rrhhn na« n nn -ir-p? plana Xs? *ar nnnn.n nr nx
praa rr:: — u-xz tt*TT\ "£u na*a na» bv rm:z'b rrz'?z b'Ti bed pM
Dtro ,— nnn ab>Dae> nenaan nanaa !r>ana nrnna rrn: ba«ma mataa -::

♦ia pWa rown
avian -rzn ■•an 'n\n x;nn an r^xn Brri 'xa nnn mbbft rt xrrx 2
nnnnn "«a nb p »nin nn p mm 'nn 'rbBi xc; nna m ww nna ttn inn
ft» bw rvnana irwra nb p m -ttix ,tti ks^bi nann tr^i^na irttn
T>sna nVrma — w-sz -:: maraa pravaa p"a maraa tr^rrn nsc naxa
.nrw roa na«n db? b^iaw rmttri j^iaa n—; n*ttna 'Kmna

378 Introduction. [CHAP. XL

We are not called upon to reconcile the apparent
contradiction in the views recorded in the names of these
great Talmudic luminaries. That which is of the utmost
importance to us, inasmuch as it explains the variants
exhibited in the Biblical MSS. and in the Massoretic
editions of the text, is the fact that three distinct traditions
represented by three different Schools are here set forth.
According to the tradition in one School, Hallelujah consists
of two separate words and the second word or the
monosyllable jah is the Divine name. Hence in writing it
the Scribe must treat it as such, sanctify it when copying
it and in case of an error must not erase it which he is
allowed to do with an ordinary mistake. In harmony with
this School, therefore, "6S"! Hallu is the imperative plural,
TV jah the Divine name is the object, and the phrase must be
translated praise ye Jehovah. And there can hardly be any
doubt that this exhibits the primitive reading which is
uniformly followed in the Authorised Version and in the
Revised Version.

According to the second School, however, Hallelujah
is one inseparable word and the termination jah simply
denotes power, might, i. e. powerfully, mightily, just as b$>
is used to denote excellence, beauty &c. in the combination
of bit *J*lj which the Authorised Version translates goodly
cedars in Ps. LXXX 10 [n]. Hence in writing it the
Scribe need not sanctify it and may erase it in case he
wrote it by mistake. It is simply a musical interjection
like the now meaningless Selah. In accordance with this
view the Septuagint and the Vulgate simply transliterate
it as if it were a proper name. Most unaccountably the
Authorised Version only exhibits this view in the margin
in eight instancewS, viz. Ps. CVI i ; CXI i ; CXII i ; CXIII i ;
CXLVI i; CXLVIII i; CXLIX i; CL i, taking no notice
whatever of this alternative view in the other sixteen

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 379

passages. The Revised Version, however, consistently
exhibits the transliterated form in the margin.

Whilst according to the third School, Hallelujah
though undivided still contains the sacred name and is,
therefore, divine. R. Joshua who represents this School
maintains, therefore, in opposition to Rab and R. Ishmael
that the sacredness of the word jah is not at all affected
by Hallelujah being written as one word. Hence the MSS.
and the editions greatly vary in the treatment of Hallelujah.
Some have it fi^Sl as one word with Dagesh in the He,
some have it ft*"^W>fl as two words with Mdkkeph and
Dagesh in the He and some as \X*hhT\ as one word without
Dagesh in the He, thus obliterating the Divine name
altogether.

The diversity in the orthography of the term
Hallelu-jah, however, is not the only effect traceable to
the reluctance on the part of the Sopherim to pronounce
the Ineffable Name even in this abbreviated form. Having
reduced it to a simple interjection its exact position in the
respective Psalms became as great a matter of indifference
as the musical expression Selah. We have seen that Hallelu-
jah originally denoted Praise ye Jehovah. This is incon-
testably established by the parallelism in Ps. CXXXV 3:

Praise ye Jehovah, for Jehovah is good ;
Make melody unto his name, for it is pleasant.

As such the phrase was a summons by the prelector
addressed to the worshipping* assembly in the Temple or
in the Synagogue to join in the responsive praises to the
Lord just as is the case in Psalm. XXXIV 4, where the
Psalmist calls upon the congregation:

O magnify Jehovah with me

And let us exalt his name together.

Hallelu-jah had, therefore, a liturgical meaning and
as such it naturally stood at the beginning of the respective

380 Introduction. [CHAP.

Psalms which are antiphonous and in the recital of which
the congregation repeated the first verse after each
consecutive verse recited by the prelector. This is attested
by the Septuagint which never has Hallelu-jah at the end
of the Psalms, but invariably begins the Psalm with it as
will be seen from the following analysis. Altogether
Hallelujah occurs twenty-four times in the Massoretic text.1
Deducting the one passage where it is in the middle
of the text, viz. Ps. CXXXV 3, Hallelujah only begins
the Psalm in ten instances,2 whereas it now ends the
Psalm no fewer than thirteen times3 and as a natural
consequence it has entirely lost its primitive liturgical
meaning, that is the summons to the congregation to
engage in the responses. In the recension of the Hebrew
text, however, from which the Septuagint was made,
Hallelujah which ends the Psalms in the present Massoretic
text, began the next Psalm in seven out of the thirteen
instances in question,4 whilst in the remaining six instances
Hallelujah was absent altogether.5 It is to be added that
the Septuagint has in two instances Hallelujah which are
not exhibited in the present Massoretic text, viz. Psalms

1 Comp. Ps CIV 35; CV 45; CVI I, 48; CXI 1 ; CXII I; CXII1 1. 9
CXV 18; CXVI 19; CXVII 2; CXXXV 1, 3, 21 ; CXLVI 1, 10; CXLVII 1. 20;
CXLVIII 1, 14; CXL1X i, 9; CL 1. 6.

2 Comp Ps. CVI 1; CXI 1; CXII i; CXIII i; CXXXV I; CXLVI i;
CXLVII 1; CXLVIII I; CXLIX i; CL I.

3 Comp. Ps. CIV 35; CV 45; CVI 48; CXIII 9; CXV 18; CXVI 19;
CXVII 2; CXXXV 21; CXLVI 10; CXLVII 20; CXLVIII 14; CXLIX 9;
CL 6. Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 4.

4 Comp. (1) Sept. Ps. CV I = Heb. CIV 35; (2) Sept. Ps. CVII 1 =
Heb. CVI 48; (3) Sept. Ps. CXIV I = Heb. CXIII 9; (4) Sept. Ps. CXVI I =
Heb. XV 18; (5) Sept. Ps. CXVII 1 = Heb CXVI 19; (6 Sept. Ps.
CXVIII 1 = Heb. CXVII 2 and (7) Sept. Ps. CXXXVI 1 = Heb. CXXXV 21.

:> Comp Ps. CV 45; CXLVI 10; CXLVII 20; CXLVIII 14; CXLIX 9;
CL 6.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 381

CXVI 10' and CXLVII \2, thus showing that in the
Hebrew recension from which it was made 12HX *3 WQJjn
/ believed, therefore, have I spoken, and nlflJTMJ D^EftT ^ZV
Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem, each began a new Psalm and
that these two Psalms were originally four Psalms.

The exact position of Hallelujah, however, is not
simply a point of difference between the Hebrew recension
from which the Septuagint was made and that exhibited
in the present Massoretic text. As late as the third century
of the present era the controversy still continued between
the celebrated doctors of the Law. The head of one School
still maintained that Hallelujah must always begin the Psalm
as it is in the Septuagint, whilst the chief of another School
contended as strongly that it must always end the Psalm
of which, however, we have no examples in the MSS. at
present known. To reconcile these two opposite traditions
the head of a third School declared that he had seen a
Psalter in which Hallelujah was always in the middle
between two Psalms (Pesachim 117 aj,] because it was
difficult to decide whether it belong-ed to the end of the
preceding Psalm or to the beginning of the following
Psalm. This is exactly its position in some of the best
MSS. which have no vacant space between the separate
Psalms and it is this which I have endeavoured to exhibit
in my edition of the text.2

As has already been remarked Hallelujah is simply
a typical instance illustrating the anxiety on the part of
the redactors of the text to deprive the monosyllable jah
of its divine import wherever this could feasibly be done.

KpTB am rrbbn n&K iovi yi -a ran Kp^a *]id rvbbn inert m n&K i
♦xpTE yac&ifc m^n inn rroi nn in pn nn 'm tyrb vh xrm anon n-i -ijdk

- A most able article on Hallelujah by the late Professor Graetz
appeared in the Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums,
Vol. XXVIII. p. 193 &c, Krotoshin 1879.

382 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

Hence the ancient authorities have also discussed other
groups of words which end in jah (IT), and as the different
Schools of textual critics could not agree about the ortho-
graphy of these expressions both the text and the Massorah
exhibit variations in the writing of sundry words throughout
the Hebrew Bible. Of these differences we can only adduce
a few examples.

Exod. XVII 1 6 exhibits one of the attempts to deprive
jah (rp) of its primitive sense. The Westerns or the
Palestinians we are distinctly told read it JTD3 as one
word with He Raphe1 and the passage is accordingly
translated "for the hand is upon the precious throne" as
the Chaldee has it, thus obliterating the divinity from the
syllable jah. As we follow the Western School I have
given this reading in the text. The Septuagint which also
exhibits the reading of one word takes it as iTDS concealed
from HDD to hide, and hence renders it "for with a hidden
hand will the Lord war with Amalek". The Easterns or
the Babylonian School, however, divide it into two words
and retain the primitive reading jah = Jehovah. Accord-
ingly the passage is to be rendered "for the hand is upon
the throne of Jehovah" which is explained to mean the
sign of an oath. This reading, in accordance with the
principles of the Massoretic text, I have given in the notes.
The difficulty, however, in which it lands us, may be seen
from the forced alternative renderings exhibited in the
margins of both the Authorised Version and the Revised
Version.

Now adhering to the primitive jah (IT) = Jehovah,
which the Sopherim tried to obliterate, it is evident from

1 Thus the Massorah fT ppfifi tibl p^fc '17 jlfi ftft Kim inn ftbti mt?3
in MS. No. i — 3 in the National Library Paris, comp. The Massorah, letter ',
§ t6o, Vol. I, p. 709.

CHAP. XI. J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 383

the phrase "Jehovah nissi" (>D3) = Jehovah is my banner,
of which n' DD is the usual explanation following the name,
that we ought to read D3 banner for D3, which occurs
nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible and the passage is to
be translated:

And Moses built an altar and called the name of it Jehovah is my
banner for he said surely the hand is on the banner of Jehovah; the war of
Jehovah against Amalek is to be from generation to generation.

And though this reading is required by the context
and is now accepted by some of the best critics yet as
there is no MS. authority for it, I have simply given it in
the notes with the introductary remark b"% the reading
appears to me to be &c.

Josh. XV 28 is another instance in which the oblite-
ration of the monosyllable jah in its separate existance for
Jehovah has taken place. According to the Westerns which
we follow, Bizjothjah (rpfii^S) the city in the south of Judah
has its meaning partly obscured by the reluctance on the
part of the redactors to exhibit the Divine name in its un-
mistakable form in such a combination. The Eastern School
of textual critics, however, manifested here also no such
awe and hence preserved the orthography rV"T)1\f3 Bizjoth-
jah = the contempt of Jehovah in two words. The recension,
however, from which the Septuagint was made undoubtedly
exhibits the original reading fpfllQI and towns or villages
thereof. This is not only confirmed by the fact that it is
the formula used in this very chapter (comp. verse 45) and
is generally employed in the enumeration of the districts
especially in the book of Joshua,1 but from the parallel
passages in Neh. XI 27, where this very verse is almost
literally given and where it is as follows: IN??*! bVW l"l2?rp!l

1 Comp. Josh. XV 47, where it occurs twice, and XVII tt, where it
is used four times in the same verse.

384 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

(TnlD^ V2V? and at Huzar-shual and at Beer-sheba and the

T v : - v

villages thereof. And though there can hardly be any doubt
that this is the correct reading as is now acknowledged
by some of the best critics, I have only given it in the
notes with the usual introductory phrase b")£ = the proper
reading is, when it is supported by the ancient Versions.
Jerem. II 31 strikingly illustrates the reluctance on
the part of one School of redactors to exhibit the name
Jehovah when it could possibly be obviated. According to
the Eastern School the passage before us is to be trans-
lated as follows:

O generation, see ye the word of Jehovah,
Have I been a wilderness unto Israel?
Is the land the darkness of Jehovah?

The Lord expostulates herewith his backsliding people
by emphatically declaring that whilst they submitted to
his guidance the land never failed to yield its rich harvests.
The interrogative form as is often the case is used for an
emphatic negative; figuratively asserting the very reverse,
viz. "I have been a paradise to Israel, the land was
brightened by the light of Jehovah." ' To predicate, however,
darkness of Jehovah was regarded by the Eastern School
of redactors as unseemely. Hence they closely combined
jah (IT) with ^DXft darkness and by this means deprived
it of its divinity. It is due to this fact that some inter-
preters take it simply to be the feminine form of ^DXO,
i. e. H^DXft darkness, which is manifestly the view exhibited
in the Authorised Version, whilst others assign to jah (IT)
the meaning of intensity as is done in the text of the
Revised Version. The common rendering which as usual

1 It is hardly necessary to remark in justification of our rendering that
DK — fi are not unfrequently used together in two consecutive clauses in con-
tinuation of the interrogative without being a disjunctive for H — H. Comp.
Gen. XXXVII 8.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 385

is based upon the Western recension, mars the rhythm
and is against the parallelism of the passage.

Ps. CXVIII 5. — According to the canon laid down
by the Sopherim and the Massorah ITDrnM is one word
and is simply another form of SITIM (Hos. IV 16; Ps.
XXXI 9), denoting literally in a large place, with room,1
and then figuratively with freedom, with deliverance, just as
1¥ which means strait, is used tropically for distress, affliction
in the first clause of this very verse and in Ps. IV 2;
XLIV 6 &c. This is the reading of the textns receptus
which follows the Western recension. The verse accord-
ingly is to be translated:

Out of my straits I called on Jehovah
He answered me with deliverance.

This reading is also exhibited in the recension of the
text from which the Septuagint was made. According to
the Easterns or Babylonians, however, the reading is
iT'SrHttD two words and hence the verse in question ought
to be rendered:

Out of my straits I called on Jehovah

He answered me with the deliverance of Jehovah.

That is with a freedom or deliverance which Jehovah
only can vouchsafe. It is, therefore, evident that we have
here another instance where the Western School of textual
critics have tried to safeguard the shorter form of the
Ineffable Name by fusing it with the preceding word since
the phrase rp"3fnft the wideness of Jehovah, in its literal
form appeared to them too bold a metaphor. It is remarkable
that the Authorised Version and the Revised Version, as
well as many modern expositors depart here from the
received Massoretic text without even giving the alternative

1 For similar duplicate forms comp. Th*hV. work Ps. XIV I &c. and
Tthhli work Jerem. XXXII 19; ^bs> Judging Job XXXI 28 and JT^E
judging Isa. XXVII 7.

386 Introduction. [CHAP. XL

reading in the margin. By detaching, moreover, JT from
^niftS and by needlessly transferring it from the end to
the beginning of the line they are obliged to assume that
we have here a constritctio praegnans and to supply the
words "and set me" which mar the parallelism.

Song of Songs VIII 6. — Owing to the same reluctance
to exhibit the shorter name of Jehovah, the Western School
of textual critics whom we follow in the texttts receptus
read ^ftltlbp in one word which is explained to mean
intense flame or as the Authorised Version renders it "which
hath a most vehement flame". In the recension from which
the Septuagint was made these consonants were also read
as one word and they were pronounced JTrQfl^ltf = (plvysg
avrfjg the flames thereof According to the Eastern recension,
however, which is also the reading of Ben-Naphtali and
several early editions it is iTTDn^ the flame of Jehovah,
and the whole verse is to be rendered:

For love is strong as death
Affection as inexorable as Hades
Its flames are flames of fire
The flames of Jehovah.

That is loving flames kindled in the human heart emanate
from Jehovah. The anxiety, however, on the part of the
Sopherim not to describe Jehovah as the source of human
love, and especially not to exhibit him in parallelism with
Hades has caused the Western redactors of the text to ob-
literate the name of God in the only place where the Divine
name occurs in this book. The Revised Version, though
contrary to the textus receptus, exhibits the true reading in
the text and gives the alternative translation in the margin.

We have seen that in the case of proper names which
are compounded with the Tetragrammaton and where it
begins the name, the He (H) has been elided to preclude
the pronunciation of the Divine name. For the same reason

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 387

Jah (iT) the shorter form of Jehovah has been safeguarded
in those proper names into which it has entered into
composition and where it constitutes the end of the proper
name. To effect this, the redactors of the text have adopted
the reverse process. Instead of eliding a letter they have
added one and converted the monosyllabic Divine name
into a bisyllabic word.

The one hundred and forty-one proper names in
the Hebrew Bible which according to the Massoretic text
end with Jah = Jehovah are divisible into three classes:
(i) The first consists of fifty-nine names, which have in
many instances the Vav appended to them so that they
respectively occur in duplicate form sometimes terminating
in Jah and sometimes in J aim. They are as follows:

rTOK Abijah = whose father is Jehovah: i Sam. VIII 2; i Kings XIV i;

Neb. X 8; XII 4, 17; I Chron. II 24; III 10; VI 13; VII 8;

XXIV 10; 2 Chron. XI 20, 22; XII 16; XIII I, 2, 3, 4, 15, 17,

19, 22, 23; XXIX 1.
'irpnx Abijahu: 2 Chron. XIII 20, 21.
ITHX Adonijah = my Lord is Jehovah: 2 Sam. Ill 4; 1 Kings I 5, 17,

18; II 28; Neh. X 17; 1 Chron. Ill 2.
1.THK Adonijahu: 1 Kings I 8, 9, 11, 13, 24, 25, 41, 42, 43, 49, 50, 51;

II 13, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24; 2 Chron. XVII 8.
IT^IK Urijdh = my light is Jehovah: 2 Sam. XI 3, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11,

12, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 26, 26; XII 9, 10, 15; XXIII 39;
I Kings XV 5; 2 Kings XVI 10, n, 11, 15, 16; Isa. VIII 2; Ezra

VIII 33; Neh. Ill 4, 21; VIII 4; 1 Chron. XI 41.
fllp/IN Urijahu: Jerem. XXVI 20, 21, 23.

IT'nx Ahazjah = upheld of Jehovah: 2 Kings I 2; IX 16, 23, 27, 29;

XI 2; 2 Chron. XX 35.
^TJCWj Ahazjahu: 1 Kings XXII 40, 50, 52; 2 Kings I 18; VIII 24, 25, 26, 29;

IX 21, 23; X 13, 13; XI 1, 2; XII 19; XIII 1; XIV 13; 1 Chron.

III ii; 2 Chron. XX 37; XXII I, I, 2, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 11, 11.
nsHK Ahijah = brother of Jehovah: 1 Sam. XIV 3, 18; 1 Kings IV 3 ; XI 29,

30; XII 15; XIV 2, 4; XV 27, 29, 33; XXI 22; 2 Kings IX 9;
Neh. X 27 ; I Chron. II 25 ; VIII 7 ; XI 36 ; XXVI 20 ; 2 Chron. IX 29.
HJriK Ahijahu: 1 Kings XIV 4, 5, 6, 18; 2 Chron. X 15.

388 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

rvbx Elijah = my God is Jehovah: 2 Kings I 3, 4, 8, 12; Ezek. X 21,

26 ; Mai. HI 23 ; I Chron. VIII 27.
ttl£>K Elijahu: 1 Kings XVII 1, 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 23, 24; XVIII 1,
2, 7, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 25, 27, 30, 31, 36, 40, 40,
41, 42, 46; XIX 1, 2, 9, 13, 13, 19, 20, 21; XXI 17, 20, 28;
2 Kings I 10, 13, 15, 17; II 1, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 14,
15; III 11; IX 36; X 10, 17; 2 Chron. XXI 12.
ITStttK Amazjah = wAo/w Jehovah strengthens: 2 Kings XII 22; XIII 12;

XIV 8; XV I ; Amos VII 10, 12, 14; I Chron. IV 34; VI 30.
rr^&K Amazjahu: 2 Kings XIV 1, 9, 11, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 2r, 23; XV 3;
1 Chron. Ill 12; 2 Chron. XXIV 27; XXV I, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13,
14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27; XXVI 1, 4.
ITH^K Amarjah = whom Jehovah said, i. e. promised q. d. Theophrastus:
Zeph. I 1; Ezra VII 3; X 42; Neh. X 4; XI 4; XII 2, 13;
1 Chron. V 33, 33, 37, 37; VI 37; XXIII 19.
rnttK Amarjdhu: 1 Chron. XXIV 23; 2 Chron. XIX 11; XXXI 15.
!T33 Benajah = Built up of Jehovah: 2 Sam. XX 23 ; Ezek. XI 13 ; Ezra X 25,
30,35,43; 1 Chron. IV 36; XI 22, 31; XXVII 14; 2 Chron. XX 14.
TO2J Benajahu: 2 Sam. VIII 18; XXIII 20, 22. 30; 1 Kings I 8, 10, 26,
32, 36, 38, 44; II 25, 29, 30, 30, 34. 35, 46; IV 4; Ezek XI 1;
I Chron. XI 24; XV 18, 20, 24; XVI 5, 6; XVIII 17; XXVII
5, 6, 34; 2 Chron. XXXI 13.
HJp'TS Berechjah = Blessed of Jehovah: Zech. I 1 ; Neh. Ill 4, 30; VI 18;

1 Chron. Ill 20; IX 16; XV 23.
TO^ Berechjahlt: Zech. 1751 Chron. VI 24; XV 17; 2 Chron. XXVIII 12.
*1??*T$ Gedaljdh = Magnified of Jehovah: Jerem XL 5, 8; XLI 16; Zeph.

I 1; Ezra X 18.
irp^l! Gedaljahu: 2 Kings XXV 22, 23, 23, 24, 25; Jerem XXXVIII I;
XXXIX 14; XL 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; XLI 1, 2, 3,
4, 6, 9, 10, 18; XLIII 6; 1 Chron. XXV 3, 9.
np&a Gemarjah = Perfected of Jehovah: Jerem. XXIX 3.
VfttM Getnarjahu: Jerem XXXVI 10, II, 12, 25.
rfb'l Delajah = Freed of Jehovah: Ezra II 60; Neh. VI 10 ; VII 62;

1 Chron. Ill 24.
Vfb'H Delajahu: Jerem. XXXVI 12, 25; 1 Chron. XXIV 18.
HJHlrt Hodavjah = Praise of Jehovah: Ezra II 40; 1 Chron. V 24; IX 7.
VPTTln Hodavjahu: 1 Chron. Ill 24.
rrnin! Zebadjah = Jehovah gave: Ezra VIII 8; X 20; 1 Chron. VIII 15,

17; XII 7; XXVII 7.
innn? Zebadjahu: 1 Chron. XXVI 2; 2 Chron. XVII 8; XIX 11.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 389

JTHST Zecharjah = whom Jehovah remembers: 2 Kings XIV 29; XV 11;

XVIII 2; Zech. I 1, 7; VII I, 8; Ezra V I; VI 14; VIII 3, II, 16;

X 26; Neh. VIII 4; XI 4, 5, 12; XII 16, 35, 41; 1 Chron. IX 21,

37; XV 20; XVI 5; 2 Chron. XVII 7; XXIV 20; XXXIV 12.
fffpj Zccharjahu: 2 Kings XV 8; Isa. VIII 2; 1 Chron. V 7; XV 18, 24;

XXIV 25; XXVI 2, 11, 14; XXVII 21; 2 Chron. XX 14;

XXI 2; XXVI 5; XXIX 1, 13; XXXV 8.
rppin Hezekijah = my strength is Jehovah: 2 Kings XVIII 1, 10, 14, 14,

15, 16, 16; Zeph. I I; Prov. XXV I; Neh. VII 21 ; X 18;

1 Chron. Ill 23.

I.TpTn Hezekijahii: 2 Kings XVI 20; XVIII 9, 13, 17, 19, 22,-29, 30, 31,
32, 37; XIX 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 14, 14, 15, 20; XX 1, 3, 5, 8, 12,
12, 13, 13, 14, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21; XXI 3; Isa. XXXVI 1,
2, 4, 7, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22; XXXVII 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 14, 14, 15,
21; XXXVIII I, 2, 3, 5, 9, 22; XXXIX 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 8;
Jerem. XXVI 18, 19; 1 Chron. Ill 13; 2 Chron. XXIX 18, 27;
XXX 24; XXXII 15.

ITp'pn Hilkijah = my portion is Jehovah: 2 Kings XVIII 37; XXII 8,
10, 12; Jerem. XXIX 3; Ezra VII I; Neh. VIII 4; XI 11; XII
7, 21; I Chron. V 39, 39; VI 30; IX 11; 2 Chron XXXV 8.

rPfjbn Hilkijahu: 2 Kings XVIII 18, 26; XXII 4, 8, 14; XXIII 4, 24;
Isa. XXII 20; XXXVI 3, 22; Jerem. I I; I Chron. XXVI 11 ;

2 Chron. XXXIV 9, 14, 15, 15, 18, 20, 22

rPD3n Hananjah = whom Jehovah has graciously given: Jerem. XXVIII 1,
5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 15, 17; XXXVII 13; Dan. I 6, 7, 11, 19;
II 17; Ezra X 28; Neh. Ill 8, 30; VII 2; X 24; XII 12, 41;

I Chron. Ill 19, 21 ; VIII 24; XXV 4.

m:n Hananjahu: Jerem. XXXVI 12; 1 Chron XXV 23; 2 Chron.

XXVI 11.

.TStrn Hashabjah = whom Jehovah regards: Ezra VIII 19, 24; Neh. Ill 17;
X 12; XI 15, 22; XII 21, 24; 1 Chron. VI 30; IX 14; XXV 19;

XXVII 17.

m&n Hashabjahu: 1 Chron. XXV 3; XXVI 30; 2 Chron. XXXV 9.
JTSitD Tobijah = my good is Jehovah: Zech. VI 10, 14; Ezra II 60; Neh.

II io, 19; III 35; IV 1; VI 1, 12, 14, 17, 17, 19; VII 62;
XIII 4, 7, 8-

ITOitt Tobijahu: 2 Chron. XVII 8.

.T31£! Jaazanjah = whom Jehovah hears: Jerem. XXXV 3; Ezek. XI 1.
W?3p Jaazanjahu: 2 Kings XXV 23; Ezek. VIII 11.

390 Introduction. [CHAP. XL

.TtTK1' Joshijah = whom Jehovah heals: Zech. VI 10.
mp» Joshijahu: I Kings XIII 2; 2 Kings XXI 24, 26; XXII 1, 3;

XXIII 16, 19, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 34, 34; Jerem. I 2, 3, 3; III 6;
XXII 11, 11, 18; XXV I, 3; XXVI 1; XXXV i; XXXVI I,
2, 9; XXXVII i; XLV I; XLVI 2; Zeph. I 1; I Chron III 14,
15; 2 Chron. XXXIII 25; XXXIV I, 33; XXXV I, 7, 16, 18,
19, 20, 20, 22. 23, 24, 25, 25, 26; XXXVI 1.

!"W Jezanjah = whom Jehovah hears: Jerem. XLII 1.

I.Tpr Jezanjahu: Jerem. XL 8.

!"!sj5trP Jehizkijah (Hezekiah) = Jehovah strengthens: Hos I i; Micah I i;

Ezra II 16.
VT*j3WT Jehizkijahu: 2 Kings XX 10; Isa. I I; Jerem. XV 4; 1 Chron.

IV 41; 2 Chron. XXVIII 12, 27; XXIX 1, 20, 30, 31, 36;

XXX 1, 18, 20, 22; XXXI 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 20; XXXII 2, 8,

9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23. 24, 25, 26, 26, 27, 30, 30, 32, 33;

XXXIII 3.

!Tb^ Jecholjah = able through Jehovah: 2 Chron. XXVI 3.
Why Jccholjahu: 2 Kings XV 2.
ITp? Jechonjah = wAo/w Jehovah has appointed: Jerem. XXVII 20;

XXVIII 4; XXIX 2; Esther II 6; I Chron. Ill 16, 17.
IJTiO? Jechonjahu: Jerem. XXIV 1.

HJ^ Jerijah = founded of Jehovah: 1 Chron. XXVI 31.
VIJIJ Jerijdhu: 1 Chron. XXIII 19; XXIV 23.

!WT Jeremjah = »W>o/n Jehovah setteth up: Jerem. XXVII 1; XXVIII 5,
6, 10, 11, 12, 15; XXIX i; Dan. IX 2; Ezra I I; Neh. X 3;
XII 1, 12, 34; 1 Chron. V 24; XII 4, 10.

VWT Jeremjahu: 2 Kings XXIII 31; XXIV 18; Jerem. I 1, 11 ; VII 1 ;
XI 1; XIV 1; XVIII 1, 18; XIX 14; XX I, 2, 3, 3; XXI 1, 3;

XXIV 3; XXV 1, 2, 13; XXVI 7, 8, 9, 12, 20, 24; XXVIII 12;

XXIX 27, 29, 30; XXX 1; XXXII 1, 2, 6, 26; XXXIII I, 19,
23; XXXIV 1, 6, 8, 12; XXXV 1, 3, 12, 18: XXXVI 1, 4, 4,
5, 8, 10, 19, 26, 27, 27, 32, 32; XXXVII 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 14,
14, 15, 16, 16, 17, 18, 21, 21; XXXVIII 1, 6, 6, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11,
12, 12, 13, 13, 14, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28; XXXIX 11,

14, 15; XL 1, 2, 6; XLII 2, 4, 5, 7; XLIII 1, 2, 6, 8; XLIV I,

15, 20, 24; XLV 1, 1; XLVI 1, 13; XLVII 1; XLIX 34; L I;
LI 59, 60, 61, 64; LII 1; 1 Chron. XII 13; 2 Chron. XXXV 25;

XXXVI 12, 21, 22.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 391

{HJ^ Ishijah = whom Jehovah /ended: Ezra X 31; 1 Chron. VII 3;
XXIII 20; XXIV 21, 25, 25.
¥W# Ishijahu: 1 Chron. XII 6.

{rr^fcttJ? Ishmajah = tvAo/n Jehovah heareth: 1 Chron. XII 4.
irrr&tr IshmajaM: 1 Chron. XXVII 19.

rTTtf? Jeshajah = help of Jehovah: Ezra VIII 7, 19; Neh. XI 7: 1 Chron.

Ill 21.
VT}$# Jeshajahii (Isaiah): 2 Kings XIX 2, 5, 6, 20; XX I, 4, 7, 8,

9, II, 14, 16, 19; Isa. I 1; II I; VII 3; XIII I; XX 2, 3;

XXXVII 2, 5, 6, 21; XXXVIII 1, 4, 21; XXXIX 3, 5,

8; 1 Chron. XXV 3, 15; XXVI 25; 2 Chron. XXVI 22; XXXII

20, 32.

ST353 Chenanjah = whom Jehovah placed: 1 Chron. XV 27.
1TO3 Chenanjahu: 1 Chron. XV 22; XXVI 29.

rr^fc Michajah = who is like Jehovah: 2 Kings XXII 12; Jerem. XXVI

18; Neh. XII 35, 41.
VTOb Michajahu: 2 Chron. XIII 2; XVII 7.
VWfi Michajhu: Judg. XVII 1, 4; I Kings XXII 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 24,

25, 26, 28; Jerem. XXXVI II, 13; 2 Chron. XVIII 7, 8, 12,

13, 23, 24, 25, 27.

!T3b& Malchijah = /w/ *//?$r is Jehovah: Jerem. XXI 1; XXXVIII 1;

Ezra X 25, 25, 31; Neh. Ill II, 14, 31; VIII 4; X 4; XI 12;

XII 42; I Chron. VI 25, IX 12; XXIV 9.
¥lj»ba Malchijahu: Jerem. XXXVIII 6.

rHyto Maazjah = consolation of Jehovah: Neh. X 9.
rnyfc Maazjahu: 1 Chron. XXIV 18.

JTt'yfc Maasejah = work of Jehovah: Jerem. XXI 1; XXIX 21, 25;
XXXVII 3; Ezra X 18, 21, 22, 30; Neh. Ill 23; VIII 4, 7;
X 26; XI s, 7; XII 41, 42.
«Ttt#a Maasejahu: Jerem. XXXV 4; 1 Chron. XV 18, 20; 2 Chron. XXIII 1;
XXVI 11; XXVIII 7; XXXIV 8.

JTttStTto Meshclcmjah = ivAo/n Jehovah repays: 1 Chron. IX 21.
VTO&fti Meshelemjahu: 1 Chron. XXVI 1, 2, 9.

!T3ria Maitanjah = ^/Yf o/- Jehovah: 2 Kings XXIV 17; Ezra X 26, 27,
30, 37; Neh. XI 17, 22; XII 8, 25, 35; XUI 13; I Chron. IX 15;
2 Chron. XX 14.

rnnfc MattanjaM: 1 Chron. XXV 4, 16; 2 Chron. XXIX 13.

392 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

!,Tnn& Mattithjah = gift of Jehovah: Ezra X 43; Neh. VIII 4; 1 Chron.
IX 31; XVI 5.
irrnnfc Matiithjahu: 1 Chron. XV 18, 21; XXV 3, 21.

{nnD Nerijah = /n/ /am/? /s Jehovah: Jerem. XXXII 12, 16; XXXVI 4,
8 ; XLIII 3 ; XLV I ; LI 59.
VJjng Nerijahu: Jerem. XXXVI 14, 32; XLIII 6.

rP?n? Nethanjah = given of Jehovah: 2 Kings XXV 23 25; Jerem. XL

14, 15; XLI 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, II, 12, 15, 16, 18; 1 Chron. XXV 2.

VTin? Nethanjahu: Jerem. XXXVI 14; XL 8; XLI 9; 1 Chron. XXV 12;

2 Chron. XVII 8.
JTHSi? Obadjah = servant of Jehovah: Obad. I; Ezra VIII 9; Neh. X 6;
XII 25; 1 Chron. Ill 21; VII 3; VIII 38; IX 16, 44; XII 9;
2 Chron. XVII 7.
VPTSj? Obadjahu: 1 Kings XVIII 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16; 1 Chron. XXVII 19;
2 Chron. XXXIV 12.
ITH1? Adajah = ornament of Jehovah: 2 Kings XXII i; Ezra X 29, 39;

Neh. XI 5, 12; 1 Chron VI 26; VIII 21 ; IX 12.
irnj? Adajahu: 2 Chron. XXIII 1.
FW Uzzijah = m/ strength is Jehovah: 2 Kings XV 13, 30; Hos. I I;
Amos I 1 ; Zech. XIV 5; Ezra X 21; Neh. XI 4; 1 Chron. VI 9.
my Uzzijahu: 2 Kings XV 32, 34; Isa. I I ; VI 1 ; VII I; I Chron.
XXVII 25; 2 Chron. XXVI I, 3, 8, 9, II, 14, 18, 18, 19, 21,
22, 23; XXVII 2.
rtnUJ Azarjak == helped of Jehovah: 2 Kings XIV 21 ; XV 1, 7, 17, 23,
27; Jerem. XLIII 2; Dan. I 6, 7, II, 19; II 17; Ezra VII I, 3;
Neh. Ill 23, 24; VII 7; VIII 75X3; XII 33; I Chron. II 8. 38,
39; III 12; V ?5, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40; VI 21 ; IX 11; 2 Chron. XXI 2;
XXIII 1.
irntg Azarjahu: 1 Kings IV 2, 5 ; 2 Kings XV 6, 8; 2 Chron XV i;
XXI 2; XXII 6; XXIII 1; XXVI 17, 20; XXVIII 12; XXIX
12, 12; XXXI 10, 13
>\?^V. Athaljah = afflicted of Jehovah: 2 Kings XI 1, 3, 13, 14; Ezra

VIII 7; 1 Chron. VIII 26; 2 Chron XXII 12.
irr'pnjP Athaljahu: 2 Kings VIII 26; XI 2, 20; 2 Chron. XXII 2, 10, II;
XXIII 12, 13, 21; XXIV 7.
."TIE Pedajah = redemption of Jehovah: 2 Kings XXIII 36; Neh. Ill 25;

VIII 4; XI 7; XIII 13; 1 Chron. Ill 18, 19.
irnS Pedajahu: 1 Chron. XXVII 20.
!"PtpbB Pelatjah = deliverance of Jehovah: Neh. X 23; 1 Chron III 21 ; IV 42.
VMDb* Pelatjahu: Ezek. XI 1, 13

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah, its Rise and Development. 393

H*p*]SK Zidkijah (Zedekiah) = my justice is Jehovah: i Kings XXII 1 1 ; Jerem.

XXVII 12; XXVIII 1; XXIX 3; Neh. X 2; 1 Chron. Ill 16.
VP$FC$ Zidkijahu: 1 Kings XXII 24; 2 Kings XXIV 17, 18, 20; XXV 2f

7, 7; Jerem. I 3; XXI I, 3, 7; XXIV 8; XXVII 3; XXIX 21,

22; XXXII 1, 3, 4, 5; XXXIV 2, 4, 6, 8, 21 ; XXXVI 12;

XXXVII I, 3, 17, 18, 21; XXXVIII 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 24;

XXXIX i,2,4,5,6,7;XLIV30; XLIX34;LI59; LII 1, 3, 5,8,

10, 11; 1 Chron. Ill 15; 2 Chron. XVIII io, 23; XXXVI 10, 11.
n\)B3E Zcphanjah = Hid or protected of Jehovah: Jerem. XXI 1; XXIX

25 29; LII 24; Zeph. I 1; Zech. VI 10, 14; I Chron. VI 2i.
VTpSit Zephanjahu: 2 KiDgs XXV 18; Jerem. XXXVII 3.
PPprn Rehabjah = whom Jehovah enlarges: 1 Chron. XXIII 17, 17.
liTaiT) Rehabjahu: 1 Chron. XXIV 21, 21; XXVI 25.
.T-it? Sera/ah = warrior of Jehovah: 2 Sam. VIII 17; 2 Kings XXV 18,
23; Jerem. XL 8; LI 59, 59, 61 ; LII 24; Ezra II 2; VII 1;
Neh. X 3; XI 11; XII I, 12; 1 Chron. IV 13, 14, 35; V 40, 40.
KM0 Serajahu: Jerem. XXXVI 26.
!T3Dttf Shebanjah = caused to grow up of Jehovah: Neh. IX 4, 5; X 5,

11, 13; XII 14.

m^6 Shebanjahu: 1 Chron. XV 24.
!T!J5# Shechanjah = habitation of Jehovah: Ezra VIII 3, 5; X 2; Neh.

Ill 29; VI 18; XII 3; 1 Chron. Ill 21, 22.
mSf Shechanjahu: 1 Chron. XXIV 11; 2 Chron. XXXI 15.
ITpbttJ Shelemjah = recompensed of Jehovah: Jerem. XXXVII 3, 13; Ezra

X 39; Neh. Ill 30; XIII 13.

Wbhti Shelemjahu: Jerem. XXXVI 14, 26; XXXVIII 1; Ezra X 41;

1 Chron. XXVI 14.
JTP&UJ Shemajah = Heard of Jehovah: 1 Kings XII 22; Jerem. XXIX 31,
3i, 32; Ezra VIII 13, 16; X 21, 31; Neh. Ill 29; VI 10; X 9;

XI 15; XII 6, 18, 34, 35, 36, 42; 1 Chron. Ill 22, 22; IV 37;
V4; IX 14, 16; XV 8, 11; XXIV 6; XXVI 4, 6, 7; 2 Chron.

XII 5, 7, 15; XXIX 14.

IHTDtp Shemajahu: Jerem. XXVI 20; XXIX 24; XXXVI 12; 2 Chron.

XI 2; XVII 8; XXXI 15; XXXV 9.
."P^ltf Shemarjah ^ Guarded of Jehovah: Ezra X 32, 41; 2 Chron. XI 19.
in;nau? Shcmarjahii: 1 Chron. XII 5.

rr^gtf Shcphatjah = judge of Jehovah: 2 Sam. Ill 4; Jerem. XXXVIII 1;
Ezra II 4, 57; VIII 8; Neh. VII 9, 59; XI 4; 1 Chron. Ill 3;
IX 8.
l.Ttpatf Shcphatjahu: 1 Chron. XII 5; XXVII 16; 2 Chron. XXI 2

394 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

Both in the Authorised Version and in the Revised
Version the distinction between these two forms of the
same name is entirely obliterated. By ignoring the last
syllable and by transliterating both forms alike, the trans-
lators have deprived the student of the means to ascertain
how far the process of safeguarding the name Jehovah or
Jah has been carried out in the different books.

(2) The second class consists of proper names
compounded with Jah ((T) which have uniformly been
lengthened into jahu (^T). Of these we have the following
eleven examples:

l-pbitX Azaljahu = reserved of Jehovah: 2 Kings XXII 3; 2 Chron.
XXXIV 8.
^rt^S Biililiijahu = emptying of Jehovah: 1 Chron. XXV 4, 13.
irPpW Jebcrechjahu = he will be blessed of Jehovah: Isa. VIII 2.
I.T^JP Igdaljahu = Jehovah will make him great: Jerem. XXXV 4.
I.T'irP Jehdejatiu = Jehovah will make him joyful: 1 Chron. XXIV 20;

XXVII 30.

*UT?3 Conjahu = established of Jehovah: Jerem. XXII 24, 28; XXXVII 1.
miS Conanjahu (the Keri), 2 Chron. XXXI 12, 13; XXXV 9.
!)!"P3p£2 Mikncjahu == possession of Jehovah: 1 Chron. XV 18, 21.
IJTitop Semachjahu = sustained of Jehovah: ) Chron. XXVI 7.
^)1V Azazfahu = strengthened of Jehovah: 1 Chron. XV 21; XXVII 20;
2 Chron. XXXI 13.
irrbEH Remaljahu = Adorned of Jehovah: 2 Kings XV 25, 27, 30,
32, 37; XVI 1, 5; Isa. VII 1, 4, 5, 9; VIII 6; 2 Chron.

XXVIII 6.

It will be seen that with the exception of the last
name all the others are of infrequent occurrence. It is
probably due to this fact that the process of uniformity
has been successfully carried out by the redactors of the
text. Here again both the Authorised Version and the
Revised Version have taken no notice whatever that these
names end in jahu firp) and have transliterated them as if
they terminated in jah (IT).

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 395

(3) The third class consists of the names compounded
with the Divine name jah (JT) which the redactors of the
text have not attempted to safeguard by converting the
ending into jahu (^JT). There are no fewer than seventy-one
such proper names which have retained their primitive
orthography and as they have not undergone any change
I need not enumerate them.

This, however, is not the only way in which the
redactors of the text guarded against the pronunciation of
the abbreviated form of the Tetragrammaton. Instead of
adding a syllable they often elided the He (n) altogether
or substituted another letter for it. Thus

iTDX Abijah, which is sometimes lengthened into liT^N
Abijahu has the letter He (n) dropped altogether and is
abbreviated into >3K AM. This is evident from a comparison
of 1 Chron. XXIX 1 with 2 Kings XVIII 2 where the
mother of Hezekiah is called by two apparently contra-
dictory names in these two passages.

**TOttfJ Ishmerai in 1 Chron. VIII 18 is now acknow-
ledged to stand for fP"lBtf? = kept by Jehovah. Not only
has the He (f|) here been elided which deprives the last
syllable of the divine name Jah (TV), but the vowel-points
have been adapted to this altered form.

Exactly the same process has been adopted in Ezra
X 34 where HgQ Maadai simply exhibits an altered form
of iTTJO Maadjah = ornament of Jehovah, which occurs in
Neh. XII 5, and in the name >3F)Q Mattenai. This name
which occurs three times (Ezra X 33, 37; Neh. XII 19) is
simply an abbreviated form of PPJFjO Mattanjah = gift of
Jehovah, with the divine name Jah obliterated.

rP*T?JJ Obadjah = worshipper of Jehovah, which has in
several places been altered into VlHjfc Obadjahu, and which
occurs in its original orthography in 1 Chron. IX 16 as the

396 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

descendant of the Levites, is spelled KIDP Abda = servant
in Neh. XI 17 though it describes the identical person.

The same is the case with \VVfip Shemajah = heard
of Jehovah, a son of Galal who is mentioned in the lists
of the Levites in 1 Chron. IX 16, whilst in the list in
Neh. XI 17 the name of this son of Galal is spelled V^V
Shammua = heard, with the monosyllable Jah = Jehovah
entirely gone. Such was the anxiety to safeguard the
Tetragrammaton.

The extent to which this process of undeifying jah
(iT) has been carried, and the effect it had upon the
redaction of the Hebrew text may be judged from the
fact that the ancient authorities went so far as to take it
in the sense of the Greek interjection i(b, iov and regarded
it as an exclamation of sorrow and pain. Thus the Midrash
Rabba on Gen. XLIII 14 remarks as follows:

R. Phineas said in the name of R. Hosejah: It is not said here "blessed
is the man whom thou chastenest, O Jehovah" [Ps. XCIV 12], but "blessed
is the man whom thou chastenest O Jah". That is just as one who is sentenced
by the judge cries out in his pain and says lay iov enough, enough! so Jacob
said He who will say of the sufferings it is enough will also say of my
sufferings it is enough! Because it is said God Almighty give you mercy before
the man &C.1

The ancient redactors of the text have also tried to
safeguard the other Divine names, notably Elohim (DTl^X)
and El (^x) God, though not to the same extent as they
have protected the Tetragrammaton. "Without entering
minutely into all the results arising from the protection of
these names I shall only advert to some of the phenomena
in the Hebrew text due to this cause.

j*o d^ns pa ',i tndTi ntrx nnn ^k nftx awin vi duo Bros m i
np ,*n 'n it it naiKi Trtastai pins: \"nn vsh jYia kii-hp rro it u-icn ntwt shx
nib fir *nw bxi nbxm ,*h ^id^ ntx? Kin *n vnwb Tniw ^ dpr ndK
:aac nuna ppd ran tmnd fiJi wxn vsb dsdnn ed. wiiina 1878.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 397

The proper name Daniel occurs eighty-one times in
the Bible, thirty times in the Hebrew text and fifty-one
times in the Chaldee portion of the book of this celebrated
prophet of the Babylonish captivity. Both in the Authorised
Version and in the Revised Version there is nothing to
indicate in the transliteration of this name that the original
exhibits a great peculiarity in the orthography. The name
denotes my judge is God, or judge of God and yet it is
not pointed and pronounced ^K*1*T Dani-el, according to
the analogy of such compounds,1 but is invariably pointed
and pronounced ^K*"\ft Dani-iel, which obliterates the
Divine name ^X El altogether. This is according to the
canon laid down in the Massorah that "the Tzere must be
under the letter Yod (*) in accordance with the celebrated
Codex in the country of Eden".2 Hence this remarkable
phenomenon in the MSS. and in the printed editions of
the text.

In Hosea X 14 a town is mentioned of the name of
Beth-Arbel ^XTIXTVD. Leaving the Septuagint which ex-
hibits here the reading ofaov %ov Tsqv^occ^ = DP3T i"P3 the
house of Jeroboam, and confining ourselves to the received
text it is admitted that the name in question as we have
it in the Massoretic reading denotes House of the ambush
of God, i. e. ^S'lXTVS. It was, however, deemed offensive
to ascribe to God the laying of an ambush. Hence it is
pointed and pronounced ^N31X Ar-bel so that the name
of God (*?$) El, is entirely disguised.

In the name Ishmael bxVSW = whom God heareth, we
have another instance in which the Divine name El (^X) God
is disguised. The reason for it is not far to seek. Besides

1 Comp. bwb* 1 Chron. V 24; VI 19; VIII 20 &c; blpg Numb.
XIII 10; b&m I Chron. XXIII 9; bx^V 1 Chron. IV 36; IX 12; XXVII 25.

2 pr nrnan wm JKnn ja rnn Tp bv nacn buyi comp. Orient. 2350,

fol. 27a British Museum.

398 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

the five passages in which it is the name of three different
persons/ Ishmael occurs forty- three times throughout the
Hebrew Bible, twenty times it denotes the first born of
Abraham by Hagar2 and in no fewer than twenty-three
instances it is the name of the murderer of Gedaliah.3 Now
it was not so much "the wild ass of a man" whose "hand
was against every man, and every man's hand against him"
(Gen. XVI 12), but Ishmael the son of Nathaniel who is
the cause of the obliteration of ^N God, in this compound
name. The horrible treachery and villainy which are re-
corded in Jerem. XL 7 — XLI 15 have made his name
execrable in the annals of Jewish history and the memory
of the massacre which he perpetrated is perpetuated by
the fact of the seventh month (Zech. VII 5; VIII 19) which
the Jews keep to this day on the third of Tishri. This
underlies the punctuation ^StfOttf* instead of ^NJJBttf* whom
God heareth. This punctuation has also been uniformly
carried through in all the eight passages in which it is the
patronymic,4 viz. ^NPftttf* the Ishmaelite, and indeed in one
instance the letter Aleph (X) in the Divine name has been
elided altogether (1 Chron. XVII 30).

The obliteration of El (b$) God, in the compound
name ^KXHP God planteth, is probably due to the infamous
and bloody deeds perpetrated in Jezreel and to the fact
that the final overthrow of the kingdom of Israel took

1 Comp. Ezra X 22 where Ishmael is the name of a priest who had
taken a strange wife; in I Chron. VIII 38; IX 44 it is the name of the sons
of Azel; and in 2 Chron. XIX 11 Ishmael is the name of the father of
Zebadiah.

2 Comp. Gen. XVI II, 15, 16; XVII 18, 20, 23, 25, 46; XXV 9, 15,
13, 13, 16, 17; XXVIII 9, 9; XXXVI 3; I Chron. I 28, 29, 31.

3 Comp. 2 Kings XXV 23, 25; Jerem. XL 8, 14, 15, 16; XLI 1, 2,
3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18.

4 Comp. Gen. XXXVII 25, 27, 28; XXXIX I; Judg. VIII 24;
Ps. LXXXIII 7; 1 Chron. II 17; XXVII 30.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 399

place here.1 It will be seen that the Divine name is here
more effectually disguised than in Ishmael inasmuch as it
is always pointed ^KJjpP with Segol under the Ay in (V) and
it is only the patronymic which has Tzere under the Ayin
(X?). In one instance the Divine name is entirely obliterated
by the omission of the letter Aleph (tf) in the patronymic
where the Keri directs us to insert it. Comp. i Sam. XXX 5.

This reluctance to pronounce the Divine names and
the consequent attempts to disguise or to obliterate them
have been a fruitful source of various readings. In some
Schools of textual critics, the elision of the letter He (H)
at the beginning or the addition of the letter Vav (1) at
the end of proper names in compounds with J ah (iT), i. e.
the abbreviated form of Jehovah (fTjiT), was more extensively
carried through than in others. The same was the case
with the substitution of Adonai 037N) Lord, or Elohim
(Q\*6x) God, for the Tetragrammaton, and with the removal
of the vowel-point Tzere from the names in compounds
with El (^X) God. Hence the MSS. frequently exhibit
various readings both with regard to the Tetragrammaton
and the other names of the God of Israel, as will be seen
in the notes to my edition of the Hebrew Bible. This also
accounts for the extraordinary phenomenon exhibited in
the orthography of the Divine names in the early editions.
Thus the editio princeps of the entire Hebrew Bible has
Elodim (D^I^K) for Elohim (D^rfrtf) God, and Jehodah f]i,T)
for Jehovah, substituting Daleth ("[) for He (n) not only in the
pronounceable, but in the unpronounceable name to disguise
them both alike. The same process of disguise is adopted
in the third edition of the Bible printed at Brescia in 1494.

XII. The attempt to remove the application of the names
of false gods to Jehovah. — We have seen that the safe-

1 Comp. 1 Kings XXI I — 16; 2 Kings IX 23—37: X I— II; Hos. I 4

400 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

guarding of the Divine names in the proper names of
human beings is the cause of a difference in the ortho-
graphy. Still, as a rule, the identity of the names and
persons is easily recognised. In the anxiety, however, on
the part of the Sopherim to prevent the application of
the names of idols to the true God, changes have been
effected in the text which often preclude the identification
of the individual and thus produce apparent contradictions
in parallel passages.

The most significant changes are those connected
with Baal. The appellative Baal (^?3) which denotes Lord,
Owner, like the appellatives Adon (JtTN) Lord, Owner, and
El (^N) the Mighty, was originally one of the names of the
God of Israel. This is evident from the fact that names
compounded with Baal are of frequent occurrence in the
families of Saul and David who were zealous defenders of
the worship of Jehovah. Thus Eshbaal (^J?2E\X) = the man
of Baal or the Lord, is the name of the fourth son of Saul
king of Israel (i Chron. VIII 33; IX 39), and Beeliada
(WbVZ) = for whom Baal or the Lord careth, is the name
of the son of David born in Jerusalem (1 Chron. XIV 7).
As names were given by parents with special reference to
God in recognition of mercies vouchsafed, it will hardly
be contended that both Saul and David dedicated their
children to the false God Baal and not to the true God
of Israel. We also find that one of David's heroes who joined
his army at Ziklag was called Bealjah (j"P^?3) = whose Baal
or Lord is Jehovah (1 Chron. XII 5), and that one of David's
chief officers was called Baal-hanan (pfrtgS) = Baal or
the Lord of mercy (1 Chron. XXVII 28).

But Baal was also the name of the supreme deity of
the surrounding nations who in conjunction with Asherah
was afterwards worshipped with obscene rites.1 Prior to the

1 Comp. 1 Kings XVIII 19; 2 Kings XXIII 4.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 401

Babylonish captivity the Jews were frequently seduced by
this libidinous form of idolatry and introduced Kedeshim
and Kedeshoth into their worship.' During their exile,
however, they were completely weaned from going astray
after other gods and on their return to the Holy Land
under Ezra and Nehemiah every effort was made by the
spiritual guides of the people to obliterate if possible the
very name of the idols whose worship was associated with
licentiousness. Hence Jehovah himself in describing the
purified state of religion declares: "It shall come to pass
at that day that thou shalt call me Ishi [= my husband]
and shalt call me no more Baali [= my Baal or Lord]:
for I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth
and they shall no more be mentioned by their names"
(Hosea II 16, 17). It is due to this declaration that the
authoritative custodians of the sacred text interpreted the
precept "and make no mention of the names of other gods"
(Exod. XXIII 13) in a most rigid sense as implying that the
very name of Baal should be cancelled even in compound
proper names. For this reason names compounded with
Baal have been altered either in a good sense or principally
by way of ridicule into compounds with Bosheth (DtP'S) =
shame. Thus

(1) Jerubbaal (bVZ^) = Baal contends, the name which
was given to Gideon by his father Joash when the people
wished to kill him, and which occurs fourteen times,2 is
altered in 2 Sam. XI 21 into

Jerubbesheth (fitttelT) = with whom shame contends, i. e.
the shameful idol. The fact that the Septuagint, the Syriac
and the Vulgate exhibit here btt*}* Jerubbaal, shows that

1 Comp. 1 Kings XIV 22-24; XV 12; XXII 47; 2 Kings XXIII 7;
Hos. IV 14; with Numb. XXV 1 — 3; XXXI 16; Josh. XXII 17.

2 Comp. Judg. VI 32; VII i; VIII 29, 35; IX I, 2, 5, 5, 16, 19, 24,
28, 57; 1 Sam. XII 11.

402 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

they had still a recension before them in which this
alteration had not been made, or that the Codex from
which these Versions were made belonged to a School
which retained the ancient reading.

(2) Eshbaal (bVZpX) = the man of Baal, the name of the
fourth son of Saul king of Israel which occurs twice
(1 Chron. VIII 33; IX 39), is altered into

Ish-bosheth (flttfaptf'K) = the man of shame, in all the
other twelve passages where it occurs.1

(3) Ashbel (bilpR) = the man of Baal, the second or third
son of Benjamin which occurs three times, viz. Gen.
XLVI 21; Numb. XXVI 38; 1 Chron. VIII 1, is altered into

Jediael (^N3?H*) = known of God, in the other three in-
stances where this name occurs for the son of Benjamin,
viz. 1 Chron. VII 6, 10, 11. It will be seen that in the case
of this name the alteration is in a good sense.

(4) Merib-baal (bV_2 3**1?) = my Lord Baal, the name of
Jonathan's lame son and Saul's grandson as he is three times
called, viz. 1 Chron. VIII 34, 34; IX 40, but more properly
Meri-baal (^gST'lO) in 1 Chron. IX 40, is altered into

Mephibosheth (fittf^Bft) = the exterminator of shame, in
all the other fourteen passages where it occurs2 thus making
it denote the very reverse of its original meaning. Mephi-
bosheth also occurs once as the name of a son of Saul
by his concubine Rizpah the daughter of Aiah (2 Sam.
XXI 8). It is, therefore, to be presumed that it is also
an alteration from Meri-baal.

(5) Beeliada (WbV^) = whom Baal or the Lord knows,
i. e. cares for, the name of a son of David which only
occurs once in the first List, viz. 1 Chron. XIV 7, is altered
into

1 Corap. 2 Sam. II 8, 10, 12, 15; III 7, 8, 14, 15; IV 5, 8, 8, 12.

2 Comp. 1 Sam. IV 4; IX 6, 6, 10, II, 12, 12, 13; XVI I, 4: XIX 24,
25, 30; XXI 7.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 403

Eliada (PT^X) = whom God knows, i. e. cares for, in
the other two Lists which repeat the names of David's sons
born in Jerusalem contained in 2 Sam. V 14 — 16 and 1 Chron.
HI 5-8.

(6) 2 Sam. XXIII 8. — The most remarkable instance
of confusion, however, which has been produceed in the
Massoretic text by this anxiety on the part of the Sopherim
"to take away the names of Baalim" (comp. Hos. II 17)
is exhibited in 2 Sam. XXIII 8. In the List of David's
chief heroes which is repeated three times, viz. (1) 2 Sam.
XXIII 8—39; (2) 1 Chron. XI 11— 41; and (3) 1 Chron.
XXVII 2 — 15, the name of the first hero who heads this
catalogue is given in 2 Sam. XXIII 8 as ^bSflft ft?ttte Mfr
This extraordinary name is rendered in the Authorised
Version the Tachmonite that sat in the seat, with the alter-
native in the margin "Or, Josheb-bassebet the Tachmonite".
This curious marginal rendering is inserted into the text
of the Revised Version with the remark against it in the
margin "the verse is probably corrupt. See 1 Chron. XI 11".
The corruption, however, which is here acknowledged is
simply confirmed by the parallel Lists, but cannot be
corrected by them. It is the Septuagint which supplies
the clue to the correction since it exhibits the reading
'Iefioe&s = Dttet^ = npi ttf'K Ishbosheth, i. e. the man oj
shame, which is also the name of the fourth son of Saul.
But as Ishbosheth itself, as we have seen, is already an
alteration of the original name bVSp] or ^J?3TP'X Ishbaal,
i. e. the man of Baal, there can hardly be any doubt that
it was the primitive reading here. This is attested by the
Lucian recension of the Septuagint which has ylE<5fiaul =
bV^p^ Ishbaal. With these facts before us we at once see
that the name of this first hero in the parallel catalogues
must also have been originally bV'Sp] Ishbaal, and indeed
the Lucian recension of the Septuagint has actually 'Ie66e-

AA*

404 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

fiacd = t?V2&'! in i Chron. XI 1 1 and B. has 'Isoafiada which
is probably an error for 'Ieospcdcc. In the Hebrew the
name was probably written both in i Chron. XI 1 1 and
XXVII 2 'V2W which was resolved by one School into bvlW
Ishbaal, and by another School disguised into DlDtP* Joshobam.
Whether the Levite tiVy®\ the descendant of Korah whose
name is once mentioned in i Chron. XII 6, was originally
also bV2W, or whether this name has made it easier for
the redactors of the text to resolve '&2W [= bVZW] into
DIDtP in i Chron. XI 1 1 ; XII 2 it is now difficult to
ascertain.

XIII. Safeguarding the unify of the Divine Worship at Jeru-
salem. — To understand the anxiety of the spiritual guides
of the Jewish Commonwealth to guard against any rival
to the central Sanctuary at Jerusalem, and the effect which
this solicitude has had upon the redaction of the text it
is necessary to advert to the events in the history of the
Jews during this period.

During the terrible wars which raged in Palestine
between the Jews and the Syrians and the consequent
persecutions B. C. 164, Onias IV, the young son of
Onias III, the legitimate High Priest, fled to Alexandria
accompanied by Dositheus who was likewise of priestly
descent.1 As Onias III had always espoused the cause of
the Egyptians against the Syrians, Ptolemy Philometor
received his son with great hospitality. Egypt, however,
was then distracted by intestine war. The brothers Philo-
metor and Physcon, were arrayed against each other in
deadly conflict fighting for the crown. Onias and Dositheus
sided with the former and became generals of divisions.
Through their high position and influence they were

1 Comp. Josephus, Antiq. XIII 3, I— 3; Wars VII 10, 3; Against
Apion II 5.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 405

followed by the Egyptian Jews into the battle-field and
greatly contributed to the success of Philometor over
Physcon. As a reward for his services Philometor made
Onias prince over the Jewish community in Egypt with
the hereditary title of Ethnarch and Alabarch.

As prince over the community, Onias was determined
to build a Temple for his numerous Jewish brethren who
had settled in Egypt 'since the Sanctuary at Jerusalem had
been profaned, and Alcimus, a usurping High Priest, was
politically appointed over the heads of the legitimate
priestly family. Being a descendant of that long line of
High Priests, whose family dated from the time of David
and Solomon, who officiated in the first Temple and who
exerted themselves in the building of the Second Temple
after the return from the Babylonish captivity, Onias IV
was not suspected of schism and hence was greatly en-
couraged by his brethren in his contemplated design. He,
moreover, pointed out a prophecy which foretold that a
Temple should be built in Egypt (Isa. XIX 19). When
Onias made his design known to Philometer this monarch
forthwith gave him a plot of land at Leontopolis, in the
Prefecture of Heliopolis for the site of the Temple. He
also assigned the revenues of the whole of this province
for the permanent maintenance of the divine service. And
it thus came to pass that in the vicinity of Goshen, on
almost the identical spot where the descendants of Jacob
had light when the rest of Egypt was suffering from the
plague of darkness, so many centuries before, the Israelites
had now a Temple wherein they worshipped the God of
Abraham for more than two hundred years (circa'B. C. 160 —
A. D. 71), when it was closed by the decree of Vespasian.

The Jerusalem Jews, who during the distracted state
of Judea and the profanation of the Sanctuary in the
metropolis received the tidings of the building of the

406 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

Temple in Egypt with joy, were afterwards extremely
jealous of its existence when the Temple at Jerusalem
had been purified and when its true worship was restored
by the Maccabeans, since the new Sanctuary in Egypt
disturbed the central point of unity. The Alexandrian Jews,
however, to whom this new Temple had been a great
comfort when the metropolitan Sanctuary was profaned,
clung to their sacred edifice most tenaciously. Hence the
alterations by the redactors of the Hebrew text of any
passage which might favour the Egyptian Temple, as will
be seen from the following illustration.

Isa. XIX 1 8. — This verse as it now stands in the
textus receptus is correctly translated in the Authorised
Version:

In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language
of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts; one shall be called, the city
of destruction.

The whole of this Section (XIX 18 — 25) predicts the
glorious future of the five Egyptian cities when they shall
use the sacred language in which the worship of God is
conducted and when they shall swear fealty to Jehovah.
And now we are told that the most distinguished of these
cities thus converted and consecrated and dedicated in so
special a manner to the worship of Jehovah is to be called
City of Destruction, which is a perfect contradiction to the
whole tenor of the passage in question. The Septuagint,
however, solves the difficulty inasmuch as it clearly shows
that the Hebrew recension from which it was made read
City of Righteousness (jtofog a6sdax = iTTtfn *W). From a
pious desire not to bring the name of any other place in
competition or even in juxtaposition with the sacred city
the metropolis of the Holy Land, the Alexandrian trans-
lators of the Septuagint, as is often the case, did not
venture to translate the word at all, but simply trans-

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 407

literated it. The Palestinian redactors, however, who were
jealous for the distinction of Jerusalem which bore this
name (comp. Isa. I 26) would not consent that this title
should be given to any other place, especially out of
Palestine.

Hence they substituted for it "the City of the
Sun", which is still to be found in the most ancient
traditions,1 in many MSS., in some of the ancient Versions
and in the margins both of the Authorised Version and
the Revised Version. But afterward when the Jerusalem
Temple was cleansed of its pollutions and the true service of
Jehovah was restored, the Onias Temple was not only deemed
unnecessary, but schismatic, another School of textual
critics altered the name "City of the Sun" or Heliopolis,
into the opprobrious name "City of Destruction". This was
done all the more easily since it simply exhibited a kind
of alliteration, which is very common in Hebrew, and only
required the slightest change in a letter, or the exchange
of two letters Cheth (n) and He (n) which are almost identical
in form and are frequently mistaken for each other both
in the MSS. and in the editions of the Hebrew text.2

1 Comp. Menachoth uoa, so also Symmachus, the Vulgate and the
Chaldee. The latter, however, exhibits both recensions D"]PI sun and D*]H
destruction, inasmuch as it paraphrases it the City of Beth-shemesh [= dwelling
of the sun, Heliopolis] which is to be destroyed, shall one of them be called

♦prufc *nn km -i&xrr n^in&b KTron rc&tp rvs xmp

2 How difficult it is to justify this reading which is followed by Aquila,
Theodotion and the Syriac may be seen from the expedient to which Kimchi
was driven in the interpretation of the passage. // shall be said to one of
them City of Destruction, that is, they will all so cling to the faith of the
true God that they will agree together that in case one of the five cities should
forsake the worship of God it shall be said to her City of Destruction, i. e.
the others will rise up against her and destroy her *?3 ftnxb "ittK"' dim Ttf

vznti nnx ban rrrnpia awn dkip aroa ■hs'ww is? bin nn&Ka o-pm m -p

408 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

It will be seen that the formulization of these principles
and the redaction of the text in accordance with them,
presuppose functions which really belong to revisers rather
than editors. But no exception can be taken to the conduct
of these divinely appointed depositories of the traditional
text. In accepting their transliteration of the text into the
present square characters, their division of it into separate
words, verses and sections, their orally transmitted pro-
nunciation of the consonants which determines the sense of
the Hebrew Scriptures and their finally fixing the canon
of the Old Testament, we already concede to these spiritual
guides of the Jewish Church a divine authority which
almost amounts to co-authorship. Their specific authority,
however, as textual revisers ceased about a century before
Christ and there can hardly be any doubt that the received
text which we now have is substantially the same which
was finally settled at that period by these authoritative
redactors. Copies of these authorised Scriptures were de-
posited in the Court of the Temple and these were not only
used for public reading, but as Standard Codices whereby
other MSS. were corrected. Thus we are told in the
Jerusalem Talmud (Taanith IV 2):

Three Codices [of the Pentateuch] were in the Court of the Temple,
Codex Meon, Codex Zaatute and Codex Hi. In one the reading was pJJtt
refuge [Deut. XXXIK 27], and the other two Codices read rTO& [with
the final Hc\ the reading of the two was accepted and that of the one Codex
was rejected. One Codex read "'DIDJM [= ^rjzr3TVs] enquires of [Exod. XXIV 5]
and the other two Codices read ^N young men of, the reading of the two Codices
was accepted and that of the one Codex was rejected. In one Codex the
reading KT! [with Yod] occurred nine times and in the other two Codices it
occurred eleven times, the reading of the two Codices was accepted and that
of the one Codex was rejected.1

inxi km ibdi town isdi [pra] ?wia isd rnwa itcxia cnso 'j 1
.mx i^tra d-3» wpi Dip vh* rwa siro swai Dip "irVx prfc Dins i*a&
s:d *ttn nx nbwi siro d-dbdi bxiw *sa •'Dtot dk nbm Dins iKxia -true

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 409

This notice reveals to us the important fact that the
Codices in question must have been completed anterior
to the introduction of the Five Final Letters when the
orthography in Deut. XXXIII 27 was still 31J?£ which one
School of textual critics read 3iI>P = |1l?0, whilst another
School read it ^Vp = HJ1PD. After the Final Letters were
leg-ally established, this variation could not have obtained
since the final Nun ([) determines the length of the word.

It, moreover, shows that at this early period the
linguistic peculiarities were already counted. In the Penta-
teuch where the pronoun third person singular Kin with
Vav occurs about 656 times, and where it is used 457 times
for the masculine gender and 199 times for the feminine,
we are told that the majority of the Temple Codices read
N>H with Yod (^) in eleven passages.

But what is most instructive in this classical record
is the fact that we are here told for the first time that
the redactors of the text at this period collated MSS. and
that they decided in favour of the reading which the
majority of Codices exhibited. In selecting, however, the
reading which was found in the larger number of Codices
they did not destroy the variant of the minority and have
thus enabled us to test the merit of the rejected reading.
We have already seen that in other instances too, where
the official reading is given in the margin, the stigmatized
words are not obliterated, but left in the text, though the
redactors do not specify the exact process by which they
arrived at their conclusions.

The classical record of these Temple Codices, however,
by no means implies that there were no other MSS. in the
precincts of the Sanctuary or that the instances adduced
exhausted the variations. Josephus tells us that Titus

s"h ir> rrc D^tsni kn run Diro ixjtia iroe ,im ■teMi trow i&^pi b*nrc*

J "TriK ibtrm D'JP Wpi comp. Jerusalem Taanith IV 2 ; Sopherim VI 4.

410 Introduction. [CHAP. XL

presented him with Codices of the Sacred Scriptures from
the spoils of the Temple/ and we know that there were
others in the possession of distinguished doctors of the
Law, which exhibited readings at variance with the present
textus recepUts. In the course of this examination we shall
have occasion to refer to the readings in the Codex of
R. Meir, the celebrated desciple of R. Akiba which are so
often quoted both in the Talmud and in the Midrashim.
In the Midrash attributed to R. Moses Ha-Darshan
at Narbonne, which was compiled before A. D. 1280, and
the MS. of which is now in the possession of the Jewish
community at Prague, a List is given of thirty-two various
readings taken from a copy of the Pentateuch which was
carried away by the Romans after the capture of Jerusalem.
Josephus records that among the trophies which Vespasian
brought from the Temple to Rome was the Law of the
Jews. This he ordered to be deposited in the royal palace
circa 70 A. D. About 220 A. D. the emperor Severus
who built a synagogue at Rome which was called after
his name, handed over this MS. to the Jewish community,
and though both the synagogue and the MS. have perished,
a List of variations from this ancient Codex has been
preserved. This List I printed in my Massorah from the
able article by the learned Mr. Epstein.2 Since then I
have found a duplicate of this List in a MS. of the Bible
in the Paris National Library No. 31 (folio 399 a) where it
is appended as a Massoretic Rubric.3 The List in this

1 Comp. Josephus, Life § 75.

2 Comp. Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Juden-
thums, Vol. XXXI V, p. 337—351, Krotoschin 1885; with The Massorah,
Vol. Ill, p. 348.

3 This List is also printed in the Monatsschrift, Vol. XXXVI, p. 508,
Krotoschin 1887. Comp. Neubauer, Studia Biblica, Vol. Ill, p. 19 &c , Ox-
ford 1 89 1.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 411

Codex, though consisting of the same number of variations
and enumerated almost in the same order, differs materially
from the one preserved in the Midrash as will be seen
from the following analysis of the two records, exhibits
the primitive Rubric. The heading of the Paris List is
as follows:1

These verses which were written in the Pentateuch Codex found in
Rome and carefully preserved and locked up in the Synagogue of Severus,
differ as regards letters and words.

(i) Gen. I 31. — Instead of "behold it was very good"
the text read "behold death was good". That this reading
was not confined to the Severus Codex is evident from
the record in the Midrash Rabba on this passage where
we are told that the Codex of the celebrated R. Meir
also read it death (mo) instead of very (TNB)2 and Rashi

rmsa wrt\ haina nan^xn xmmx nsaa pama nm R*p1Dfl p^R 1

nam nw npx na nx arnnx xnn tmami mmix natra aiman xnwaaa xamai
nxan rmpwon iaina rm tons ,apann my mans tains m,n ma ,nxa aia
tama rm ynxai ,amax hanx mnx w na*n tama rm anggaori .nnaiwnx
run tama rm maa^ ,mapi xa nan tama rm mnaa ,2pwb inmaa nx naan
pi tana rm ttrr nTib*1 mrbnitn t^irh taina rm mo ,n^^ mna ■•aa rm
is^nx taina rm amata .nanata rrtn laipn taina rm trir'' ,ts?w '3a m nnxm
•aw ,atp nnapxi tama rm mna rmnab ax*? wpn tama m,n mwa ,mn p
*aa iran tama rm ansa ,na^na;a a\san nxnt^ ^a map nnxi tains rm
rrab ,btnw *ab Tarn apr mab naxn na tama rm 'oama ,BBByna nxnur
-ana [nan npni tavrna aina rm x^ ^tmpn BTma npam n,Tnn aina rm
,na*an nnap na nnx mpaai tains rm am a^aa ,an pm "w tains rm 'ana
aamiBny mtrxna tains rm xsn ,nnpn xaain xs na tains rm a^an
-ipx ,*pxn nnx a-anan nxa btnw ^aa napa apa tama rm aannn ,aamnnn
,ffpv saa ^xn lanpn tna ia aina rm xn ,nny na nxi rwa nx ixan tama rm
rm 'an ,an aa ircim tama rm 'amax minrn amax xni tama rm spv p
rm a^aax.n man by axn npn xn tama rm maxn ,<naxn ma lamxnnn tama
rm nasaa ,aina nx amnx naa.naa tama rm nanp ,tt-w nnai mnaa tama
.ian naxn tins* nnnaa pna* nma xan tama rm an \x e^x ,amxax mnax t'ina
2 ma aia nam nxa aia nam aina ixara mxa •'an bw mmna Midrash

Rabba, Parasha IX, fol. 24 fc, ed. Wilna 1878.

412 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

(1040 — 1 105), in his gloss on the Midrash so far from taking
exception to this reading, adduces Eccl. VII 9 in support-
ing it. The variant (DirO tV.H filB) is inadvertently omitted
in the Prague recension of this List. This is also attested
by Kimchi in his Commentary on this passage.1

(2) Gen. Ill 21. — According to this List the reading
of the Severus Codex in the passage before us was simply
"and the Lord God made unto Adam and to his wife coats",
without specifying the material of which the said garments
consisted. Here again the Prague List which adduces the
same catchword does not give the variant. From the
Midrash Rabba on this passage we learn that the Codex
of R. Meir exhibited here another variant. Instead of "coats
of skin" (111?) this celebrated Codex read "coats of light"
(TIN), i. e. luminous, bright or precious coats, having Aleph
(H) instead of Ayin (V)2 and Onkelos appears to support
this reading.3

(3) Gen. XVIII 21. — Instead of "according to the
cry of it" (flripJJ¥3n) with the suffix third person singular
feminine, the Severus Codex read "according to their cry"
(□ripP^H) with the suffix third person plural masculine.
This is manifestly the primitive and better reading as is
evident from DfiNftn their sin, in the preceding verse and
as is attested by Onkelos, the Jerusalem Targum and the
Septuagint.

(4) Gen. XXIV 7. — In the passage before us the Prague
List has preserved the proper catchword and the more

ana nrrn wrt\ *zr\b rwntmm wwiio aim iron mro nniaa ^ki *

tnifc Slfc Ham Dl^lDlH KntP^n rUDTlDI Comp. Commentary on Gen. I 31.

own |H» ptwrn d-ik nan "6k iik niaro siro ixaca an bw lminn 2

iPlbl^fc p2£l nioaba tmm U?zb Comp. Midrash Rabba, Parasha XX,
folio 47 a, ed. Wilna 1878.

3 *narO in the List of the Paris National Library is manifestly a clerical
error for ITiarO.

CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 413

correct variant exhibited in the Severus Codex. According
to this Rubric the Severus Codex had here "who took me
from my house and from my country" (^INftl WStt) in
harmony with this phrase in verse 4, instead of the more
lengthy phrase "who took me from the house of my
father and from the land of my birth" which is the reading
of the textus receptus. Though the catchword in the List
of the Paris National Library is wrong, inasmuch as it
refers to Gen. XXIV 12, the expression 'jnNBI = XPIXttl
and from the land exhibits the remains of the right variant
contained in the Prague recension.

(5) Gen. XXV 33. — The Severus Codex read here
"and he sold his ware" (imjft) or price, instead of his
birth-right (OTH3).

(6) Gen. XXVII 2. — The reading here in the Severus
Codex, though yielding no difference in the sense from
that in the textus receptus, is of great orthographical interest
inasmuch as it exhibits the primitive text prior to the
division of the words and to the introduction of the final
letters. In the Prague recension of this List these features
have been obliterated through a clerical error. For a
similar instance which exhibits the same orthographical
features see below No. 11.

(7) Gen. XXVII 7. — The value of the variation here
consists in the fact that it discloses to us a period in the
orthography of the text when in the absence of the dia-
critical mark which now distinguishes Shin (fi) from Sin
(JD) the letter Samech (D) was more frequently used by
some Schools of textual critics. In the Prague recension
of the List the point in question is obliterated through a
clerical error.

(8 and 9) Gen. XXXVI 5, 14. — The variation here
affects the orthography of the proper Name Jeush (EfaXP).
This name which occurs nine times in the Bible is spelled

414 Introduction. [CHAP. XI.

in two different ways. In six passages it is Jeush (EfajJ*)
with Vav,1 and in three instances the textual reading or
the Kethiv is Jeish (WW) with Yod2 for which the official
reading or the Keri substitutes ttfaJJ? Jeush with Vav to
make it conformable to the six instances. Now according
to the Severus Codex the textual reading in both these
instances was ttftJP Jeish with Yod and without the official
Keri. According to the Prague recension, however, the
textual reading in both passa

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Introduction to the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible"

See other formats